Paul,
Please provide details of your alleged penalty for the other station
logging you wrong in the CQWW.
What callsign, what year, and what did he log incorrectly?
I am very interested in finding out how this could happen.
Bob W5OV
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|