WHY are we even responding to what this lid thinks is a cutesy way to make
up his own rules? If he doesn't like any contest's format, may I suggest he
go create his own contest, rules, judging, headaches, etc.
I yearn for the day that he calls me, looking for a probable double mult.
Bring it on.........
Jim Neiger N6TJ ZD8Z
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Lee Hiers
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 9:14 PM
To: cq-contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Re: Partial Exchanges
On 7 Sep 2003 at 20:19, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> > Why not play by the rules? In this case you
> > clearly should have been DQ´ed.
>
> As I was not DQ'd, it seems that the rule is not enforced.
No, it seems you weren't caught. Didn't you say that your log reflected
sent reports,
but you added a narrative comment that you didn't sent a report unless
requested?
If so, you submitted a false log, and should have been DQ'd - and everyone
who didn't
copy the exchange from you should be penalized as well. But, because of
your false log,
it would not be possible to determine who the other offenders were.
> What is the point, or where is the merit or skill, in exchanging 59(9)
> in every contest QSO? And please don't say "it's in the rules".
But it is in the rules. The exchange of CQ/ITU zones is almost as
meaningless. So what?
> We all know that RS(T) is not cross-checked in the major
> contests and that all contest logging software defaults to
> 59(9) logged - both sent and received.
I don't know if that part of the exchange is checked or not, but I doubt it.
It should
be. I get enough non-59(9) reports that it seems it should be checked. And
while the
logging software I use does default to a 59(9) sent exchange, it is trivial
to change the
sent report to something else. I've done it. If your program can't handle
this, just
ask and I can make suggestions for a logging program that can... ;-)
And FWIW, when I don't receive a signal report and it's part of the
exchange, I ask for
it. And if it's a weak station giving me something I can tell isn't 59(9),
I'll ask for
fills until I get it....or don't log the Q. Why? Because it's the right
thing to do -
it's part of the exchange - it's in the rules.
> Therefore, saying 59 or sending 599 in every QSO is a pointless
> exercise - apart from the fact that, at present, it's required by the
> rules.
I really don't care if a signal report is required or not...as far as I'm
concerned you
can discuss it here all you want, take out full page advertisements in QST,
whatever
means of lobbying for change you want...but if you so blatantly violate the
contest
rules, you should be DQ'd.
Simple, huh?
Dang, I hate it when the trolls hook me....
Lee
--
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
Cornelia, Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
---------------------------------------------------------------
The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|