There is no requirement to exchange the callsign twice! There is no odd
"double portion" of the exchange! Where did you get the idea of someone
getting DQ'ed for it? Sheesh. We need some reality here - please!
Your call needs to be sent ONCE in the middle of the exchange - that's it.
What you do before and after the exchange does not matter. Focus on what
happens on the air.
Here's how it might have gone ON THE AIR with N3LI running:
N3LI: QSL N3 Lima India SS
W5OV: Whiskey 5 Oscar Victor
N3LI: W5OV 123 Alpha N3LI 99 EPA (or is it WPA?)
W5OV: 234 Bravo W5OV 73 NTX
N3LI: QSL N3 Lima India SS
No double sending of callsigns in the exchange!
If someone chooses to enter the callsign twice in their logging program -
that is their business. I could care less. My perspective aligns with the
rules.
The only issue is that you must send the callsign over the air in the right
order in the exchange.
How you choose to log it does not matter. The rules do not stipulate this
either.
This is a computer logging issue, not a required exchange issue.
Clear enough?
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Coslo
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:01 AM
To: CQ Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS SSB And Your Callsign In The Exchange
On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:44 PM, Ken Adams wrote:
> Well, this is quite a lively discussion.
>
> This was the 75th running of a domestic contest steeped in
> tradition. I
> like tradition.
> We had very high scores this year and participation appears to be up.
> Thanks to all of you who got on the air and helped all of us enjoy SS.
>
> And for the record, I am in favor of leaving the exchange sequence as
> is. It's worked fine for decades and will for many to come.
Even though I think the doubled portion of the exchange is pretty odd,
and a method of "cheating" is readily available by simply looking at
the logged callsign, there is another matter here.
If the callsign needs to be exchanged twice, and if not exchanging it
twice is basis for disqualification, then there is a real problem:
All logging software must be changed so that the second exchange of
callsign must be entered manually and in proper order.
The cabrillo format must be changed so that the second and manually
entered callsign shows up in it's proper order, and so that the
changed logging software knows where to put it's properly formatted
exchange.
Otherwise the contest sponsor has absolutely no way of determining if
the rules were followed - short of the schemes of making everyone
record and submit their entire operation, and hiring armies of people
with an extremely high boredom threshold to listen to them. And if you
cannot determine if a rule was adhered to, you cannot determine if it
was violated. How do we know that a person did or did not send their
callsign in the proper sequence?
And there is where I think lies the crux of the problem. That is a lot
of work just so that some people who have a linear approach to the
exchange can be satisfied.
Much better to consider the entire communication as part of the
exchange. Then there is no "crime". Individual Ops can determine if
that is good enough for them, and Nil at will and discretion.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
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
|