Hi, folks There was some recent ballyhoo over whether you had to send your own call as part of the exchange in Sweepstakes, or if merely giving your call during your CQ message or answering a CQ was
As a programmer, I try to avoid inconsistency, redundancy or repetition :-) My question is - why MUST the call be part of the exchange when it's already "exchanged" as part of the QSO initiation proc
"My question is - why MUST the call be part of the exchange when it's already "exchanged" as part of the QSO initiation process?" Why not? The exchange is the exchange. It specifies that certain info
Paul, My comments are intermingled with yours below. Sweepstakes was originally a contest among traffic handlers, and the contest exchange mimics the old NTS traffic handlers message header. In that
Agreed. I'm just making the point that, whatever the original rationale, sending the call twice is unnecessary repetition. If the rules said you had to send the call three times, what would you do? I
The historical answer is the exchange is the format of the ARRL message preamble from the days of traffic handling. I hate to sound old, but I remember when SS also had time and date in the exchange,
If an Op sends me his callsign during the initial contact, I already have it, and agree it is not necessary to send it again. That isn't all that much different from asking someone to send part of th
I found a slight downside to giving your call in the exchange. During the exchange, I usually said "AD1C" (without the phonetics) which sounds like "81C". So some folks got confused, thinking 81 was
Not sure, but not during this contest but a RTTY contest within the last month, someone sent me a report of 577 so I put that in as the the report. As for repeating the call in the report, it does se
I may have been dreaming again, but didn't Sean from the ARRL post on here before the contest saying that your callsign during the exchange was required ???? _________________________________________
It is based on the rules. I like the long SS exchange and the callsign as part of it but maybe that is just because I am used to it after all these years. I had quite a few folks not sending their ca
While it may seem unnecessary from your perspective, if it is in the rules then you operate accordingly, or run the risk of being disqualified. You may protest the rule by not following the rule, bu
Yes. Not every contester is evidently on this reflector, though. I heard a few people giving their exchange but leaving out the callsign in the proper place during Phone SS. 73, Zack W9SZ ___________
Would you DQ everyone who gives a callsign, but does not do it twice? I would not. And any advantage is certainly not unfair. You choose to nil the other op. I can make the exchange from the logged c
Personally I like having the callsign in the exchange. It allows the number and precendence to be entered and the tab key hit to advance to the check box while the call is being sent. AND, it does co
With the long exchange, it's a big help to S&P'ers to have the call in the exchange so they can tell who's frequency it really is, make sure it wasn't a busted spot, and/or figure out if a QSO is jus
Sean said the callsign is part of the exchange. Sean said the rules did NOT say when you had to exchange the callsign. The rules suggest an order for the exchange. In the suggested order, the callsi
Cabrillo is not the sponsor of the contest, the ARRL is, so the Cabrillo output is not an indication. Here is the ARRL rule on the exchange and the example. Look closely at the example, it illustrate
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:17:32 -0800
I agree. Why is this such a huge issue. It says in the rules that the call must be given in the exchange so why can't this just be accepted? It's simply worded and very concise.. the way rules should