IMHO, Ranko is absolutely wrong.
He's taking the law into his own hands and becoming a contesting vigilante.
Integrity in contesting means you give your word that you followed the rules
of the contest.
He didn't follow the rules of the contest, irrespective of how ardently he
may disagree with them. He can't have one without the other.
If he so flagrantly violates one rule, are we unreasonable to wonder what
other rules he may have violated?
3400 59s are cheap. Integrity is priceless.
73, Kelly
Ve4xt
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Igor Sokolov
Sent: March-31-08 9:19 AM
To: n2ic@arrl.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges
IMHO Ranko is absolutely right.
Here are the arguments:
1)Why ENN in cw contest is legal and silent omission of the default 59 in
SSB contest is not?
IMHO such omission is simply the extreme shortening of the report similar to
ENN in CW
2)If 59 found in the log of the sender as well as in the log of the
recipient at the time of cross checking what is the ground for blaming the
sender in rules violation?
3)Everybody knows that RS is not checked during logs cross checking.
73, Igor UA9CDC
> Ranko,
>
> Broadcasting the contest on the internet was a great service ! I know of
> many
> contesters who listened to your audio for part of the contest and were
> impressed.
>
> However, many of those same listeners noted that you were often leaving
> out the
> signal report. In fact, here are some statistics from a few listeners.
>
> Listener % of QSO's with signal report
>
> N6** 30
> K5** 27
> K5## 21
> K3** 25
>
> So, let's play with those numbers. You made 3543 QSO's. Without making
> accusations, let's assume that you gave a signal report for 25% of the
> QSO's,
> and let's say that speaking "five-nine" adds 1 second to each QSO. That
> gave you
> an extra 2547 seconds of operating time, compared to an equivalent
> station/operator who sent the signal report with every QSO. Using your
> average
> rate of 98 QSOs/hour, that gave you 70 extra QSO's.
>
> A few contesters on this list will applaud your ingenuity. I, and the vast
> majority of contesters, feel that you broke the rules, and, as a result,
> gained
> a competitive advantage.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
>
> 4O3A wrote:
>> My friends,
>>
>> I broadcasted all contest and all was very open. Tried to encourage local
>> contesters to do the same and to make contesting more open here. I do not
>> think that I have to make any longer comment on that subject? I Of course
>> I
>> gave RST and probably sometimes in huge pileup's gave only number, as 59
>> is
>> default. I really push many of you back to repeat exchange number to be
>> sure
>> its correct. After many hours I did some mistakes, either, and for some
>> you
>> have to shot me, at least??
>>
>> Two questions? How many times in contest you gave 59, but asked guy to
>> repeat
>> report many times. Was it 59? Why you did not gave 33 as it really was?
>> Is it
>> OK to have some exchanges, as zones already implemented in logging
>> program
>> and you just put enter, even if you did not hear report?
>>
>> Now someone's have good subject and can discuss that matter next few
>> months?
>>
>>
>> Thanks to all who called me in WPX and lets enjoy.
>>
>> Ranko
>>
>> _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|