Kelly,
I have been penalized for the other station logging me wrong when it was
obvious that he worked me. It happened more than once.
CQ WW DX CW.
73
Paul N4XM
At 10:01 PM 4/8/2009 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>The world does not need more rules, and this rule does not need to be
>clarified.
>
>There are many reasons that the check or section associated with a
>particular callsign may not be stable from year to year. There are any
>number of stations with a constant parade of guest operators, each with
>different years of first licence. Some hosts suggest maintaining the check
>the host has sent previously. Some hosts let the guests use their own
>checks. All could be interpreted as correct under the rule.
>
>Another scenario is that a club station may transfer trusteeship to another
>party who didn't know that the check for K0XXX last year was based on when
>the club was issued KB0XXX and sets the year the club received K0XXX as the
>check.
>
>Is Tod, K0TO in Idaho or Minnesota? You'll have to copy the exchange each
>year to find out, won't you? And isn't that the point? Are we going to FORCE
>Tod to never go back and operate in Minnesota? Should we have told K1AR that
>he could NOT move to NH back when he did? And I guess Randy committed a
>cardinal sin by moving from Texas to Massachusetts. Boy, I guess I'll really
>mess up the works the year I turn an amplifier on... Or scale back to 5w...
>Or run packet...
>
>It is for these reasons that I suggest that pickin' the pepper over forcing
>stations to send their accurate check (darn it, if you don't send what my
>autofill puts in, how will I ever get it right?) just isn't worth it. Copy
>what was sent: there are any number of reasons why any element of an
>exchange could legitimately be different than what your crutch is telling
>you. If you lean too hard on your crutch and fall over, you have only
>yourself to blame.
>
>I'm also with the guy who asked why anyone should care what the OTHER
>station logs. It is what YOU log that affects your accuracy rate.
>
>If you are committed to copying accurately, it should not matter one whit to
>you if a station's check is the same this year as last.
>
>73, Kelly
>Ve4xt
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Eric Hilding
>Sent: April-08-09 6:08 PM
>To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes -Automatic Fill - 93 or 67
>
>Hans, K0HB/W7 wrote:
>
>
>
>>I have on file a letter from "The Desk" which states that the check used
>> need only be consistent for the entire contest weekend, but need not be
>>consistent from weekend to weekend.
>
>IMHO, this is still game playing and a violation of the Spirit of the
>Rule(s). If the ARRL is going to allow use of a Bogus CK, then THEE RULE(S)
>should be changed to state Carte Blanche is permissible when it comes to
>year first licensed.
>
>The use of Prefills is like a loaded gun:
>
>In the hands of an experienced, trained Contester, there may not be any
>problems.
>
>In the hands of an inexperienced, causal Contester or basic LIDS, too many
>people can and do get hurt.
>
>My CW SS Error Rate was 1.1% and I shudder to think how high it would have
>gone had I operated from a different Section or used a different CK.
>Changing from B to U different years has already caused enough problems
>DURING the event ;-(
>
>73.
>
>Rick, K6VVA * The Locust
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
|