----- Original Message -----
From: <mstangelo@comcast.net>
To: <K3BU@aol.com>; <topband@contesting.com>
>
>>
>> >>>........Wouldn't it make the contest in question more meaningful if
>> >>>the
>> exchange RST/RS (which is 99% insignificant, superflous, and also false,
>> i.e.
>> automated 599/59) were changed to a serial number or significant number
>> which
>> would require synchronization to validate a QSO????? As we all know, the
>> signal
>> report, in 99% of the contacts, is a farce, and the spirit of the meaning
>> of
>> the report is abused by programming 599 into a keyer.<<<
>>
> A complete QSO should include the exchange of callsigns and some
> meaningful information such as a valid signal report.. Why don't they
> modify the rules such that meaningful signal reports have to be exchanged
> and they have to match in the logs or the contact is disqualified. This
> would also provide meaningful information on the propagation between
> different stations and let one compare the efficiency of his or her
> station with a nearby station.
>
> I'm leary of using serial numbers because someone could deduce the
> received number by from the previous or following QSO.
> Sending meaningful exchanges will improve the operator's ability to
> communicate.
Even if you copy the previous or following QSO number, you are still
forced to copy essentially the same additional information (I don't think
the rules state anything about when a QSO must start and end other
than it must fall within the contest period). In any case, a serial number
is better than "599" which you can deduce without even turning on the
radio. Random numbers generated by software would really make it
interesting, however.
Mike W4EF.........................................
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|