Paul,
I like your thinking. It's always amazing how people are resistant to
change. They will come up with all sorts of excuses not to change.
They are unable, unwilling, to step back and objectively look at the
situation. They would rather remain mindless. As you say, break the
apparent rule and see if it is in fact a rule. I believe that the only
way these sponsors are going to change is when the contesting community
says enough stupidity is enough and the contesting community makes the
change. Remember these sponsors are probably just as resistant to
change as are a lot of us brain dead contesters.
Doug
"Those Island days are always on my mind,
Someday I'm going to leave it all behind."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Tessmer" <mtessmer@mindspring.com>
<snip>
> That's not the point. The point is that the contest
> exchange, as currently written in the contest rules,
> is RS(T) report and serial number.
The actual point is that many members of this mailing
list are clamouring for a penalty to be applied to
those individuals who disregarded an obsolete rule
in WPX.
They might do better to direct their indignation at
the contest sponsors who have neglected to update
their rules in the light of changes in operating
practices, in particular the mindless repetition of
59(9), over the last 30 years or so.
According to a report in The Telegraph (London), for
31st January 2008,
People need to be clear about what is in force and
what is not, and an oversized statute book filled
with out-of-date information wastes every-body's time.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/30/nband130.xml
The mindless repetition of 59(9) is the result of an
out-of-date rule that wastes everybody's time. It
is quite clear that the rule is not in force because
no one is penalised for ignoring it.
It's time to put up or shut up. Change the rules
or penalise those who break them.
73,
Paul EI5DI
----- Original Message -----
From: <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
> Why do we need to exchange our zones in CQWW DX?
> We already know the zones of the stations we work
> with the exception of the USA.
You're right - but that's an issue for another day.
> Many contests have what some would consider obsolete
> rules but the bottom line is you still have to follow
> them.
The other option is to break the rule for the sole
purpose of demonstrating that the rule is obsolete.
If you then submit an entry and suffer no penalty,
you know that the rule is no longer in force or the
offence is so trivial that the contest sponsors do
not care one way or another.
> If you knowingly break a rule then it should be
> grounds for disqualification.
I agree with you. Contesters who break rules should
be penalised - up to and including disqualification
depending on the gravity of the offence. But, maybe
some rules are not really rules? One legitimate and time-tested way of
finding out is to break the rule.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|