----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
> .. 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 be.
SS is a contest. Any rule that suggests or requires
unnecessary repetition is open to question - regardless
of how simple or concise it may appear to be.
Is it good to repeat callsigns? Yes, but probably no
better than repeating the call as part of a CQ. This
applies to all contests, not just SS.
Is it bad to repeat callsigns? Yes, when you're
running continuously.
In SS, the second saying/sending of the callsign is
a legacy of the time when the second callsign identified,
or was intended to identify, the originator of the message
(the exchange). As the originator and the person making
the transmission are one and the same, the second callsign
is redundant.
There is tacit recognition of this fact, in the rules,
in that the Cabrillo Format for SS QSOs (Cabrillo is the
current version of the former ARRL Suggested File Format)
makes provision for one appearance only of the callsign,
even though the rules otherwise require it to be sent
twice.
If ARRL, or SS entrants, think of SS as an operating
exercise rather than a contest, then perhaps repeating
the callsign has some merit. Otherwise, it has none.
The required repetition of the callsign is effectively
a handicap on contesters, and some are "cheating" by
not repeating it. Is it time to review this rule?
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|