My guess is they figured that
1) you screwed up on the exchange
2) QRM obliterated it
3) they, themselves missed it due to fatigue
In any case, they adapted, logging the (almost as unimportant part)
zone, and moved on. (I use, albeit infrequently, the zone as sort of a
checksum on the prefix - it has saved my butt a few times)
CQWW is a rate contest so any "meaningful" exchange slows things down.
The "599" is a sort of synchronizing sound - in QRM it lets one's
internal audio filter (that listens for tone frequency and quality,
fist, etc.) "lock" on the signal before the zone part comes. The RST
is required on DXCC QSL cards I believe - you want those folks to lie?
Tradition plays a role as well - folks are used to it. There's nothing
wrong with that...
Mike N2MG
The following message was sent by "Paul O'Kane" <paul@ei5di.com> on Sun, 24 Nov
2002 19:33:48 +0000.
> In CQWW-CW I had about 450 QSOs - mostly on 10m, both
> running and hunting.
>
> In all QSOs the exchange I gave was 14 - not 5NN14, just
> 14. Only four stations asked for their RST, indicating
> that over 99% accept that it makes no difference (to them)
> whether or not the other station gives a report.
>
> The 99% are right - it doesn't matter! Their logs will
> show 599 received, and my log will show 599 sent. Even
> if I gave something other than 599 to the stations who
> asked for a report, it still does not matter what's in
> their log or in mine, as reports are not cross-checked
> in CQWW.
>
> Yes, the rules say that RS(T) should be exchanged, and
> I broke the rules. I did this to draw attention to the
> rules themselves, and to the archaic practice of
> exchanging 5NN in major contests.
>
> Perhaps the rules can be updated, because a "rule" that
> is not enforced is not a rule - it's a recommendation.
>
> Recommendations are not mandatory, they're optional. It
> follows, therefore, that the exchange of RS(T) in CQWW
> is optional.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
|