On Nov 21, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Robert Naumann wrote:
> I think your answer is clear that you will not comply with the rules.
Sure I will. I'll give my exchange in the proper manner. ALways have,
always will. Even if I don't like it.
>
>
> The callsign must be sent in the middle of the exchange. I truly
> cannot
> believe that this point is being argued at all.
And I'm saying that:
1. if there is no way to enforce the rule, it isn't terribly viable.
Where is the proof to the sponsor that the exchange was exactly where
it is supposed to be and nowhere else? What if it's okay to the
sponsor anyhow?
2. The exchange should be unique, not something that is redundant.
How far do you want to extend the logic that the exchange must be
exactly where you determine it to be? If I miss one part, does the Op
have to send the entire exchange over again in the exact order? When
I'm running low power, Search and Pounce, I'll have the entire
exchange already entered into the fields before the QSO, minus the
serial number. (when there is one) Just pop in the last part when the
QSO is finished, and hit the enter key.
I suppose technically and philosophically (for some), what I had
typed in was not *specifically* my physical reaction to the specific
words the Op sent specifically to me, so therefore this is an invalid
QSO entirely? I picked up most of the exchange from an exchange he had
with another Op, not me. What if I know that entire exchange already,
and couldn't hear one part of it during my QSO because of a static
crash when the Op sent that part to me (I knew what it was from his
earlier exchanges because of my SnP mode. Do I have him repeat it even
though I know it already?
This is a regular practice by Search and pouncers. Is it reason to DQ
them?
That is just the logical extension of the "Callsign has to be
exchanged at this exact point". We know what that part of the exchange
is, it cannot be anything else, yet if we do not hear it at that exact
point, it is null and void.
What if in this particular contest, there is the static crash during
a proper exchange? Do you just enter the Op's callsign because you
already know it, or do you make him repeat something you already know
until you are sure you heard it in it's correct place?
Frankly, I think that is splitting hairs to the point of silliness.
But it's the same argument.
And that is why if I know what that part of the exchange is, I'll
enter it.
>
> You would deserve to be DQed if you did not send your call in the
> middle of
> the exchange.
First off, I send mine correctly. I know what following the rules is.
But it is a useless part of the exchange, and deserves to be changed.
It makes no more sense than sending any of the other parts of the
exchange twice.
I'll lobby for it to be changed, and a more meaningful exchange
element to be used in it's place.
Already we have sponsor guidance that they suggest the exchange sent
in the proper order, but not doing that does not result in a DQ. Good
enough for them, so it's good enough for me, although I will still
lobby for a meaningful (read non-repetitive) substitution to the
exchange. At that point, there is no question - they have to send it,
and will almost certainly send it in the proper order.
So if you want to NIL people who don't send it the way you like it,
that is your prerogative, not the sponsor's edict.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|