I'd like to see the actual, on-air, exchange of 59(9)
in WPX become optional.
Here's why. You can skip the rest now if you are
not interested.
73,
Paul EI5DI
__________________________________________________
In WPX the exchange is 59(9) + Serial.
What's good about it is the serial - it's different
for every QSO. It can't be guessed and it can't be
pre-filled by software. To that extent, WPX has a
more meaningful, some say more difficult, exchange
than some other major contests.
There are contests with exchanges that do not
change, and which some contesters prefer, but let's
stay with WPX for now.
We are in a situation where, for thirty years or
so, the practice of sending 59(9) in every QSO in
major contests has been almost universal. It's not
cross-checked because there's little or no chance
of finding discrepancies.
Many contesters accept that 59(9) serves no
particular purpose. However, some prefer to hear
it because it tells them the important part of the
exchange is next and, in effect, it gets their
mind in gear. They accept that SS and Field Day
can be more demanding - the pressure is on to
copy everything immediately after they hear their
own callsign - or immediately after they send the
exchange while running.
This thread started because some well-known, and
competitive, contesters did not send 59 in all
their WPX SSB QSOs, and were accused of gaining
an unfair competitive advantage by breaking the
rule.
Yes, it was an advantage and it was unfair. They
broke a rule - a rule that most contesters are
quick to defend. What's not always clear is
whether they are defending the practice of
sending 59(9), as something with intrinsic value,
or the rule itself - as in "no one should ever
break a rule".
I assume that most are defending the rule.
It is self-evident that laws and rules should
not be broken, and that it is unlawful to do so.
However, these constraints apply only to those
laws and rules that are in force, or are
generally enforced. When someone breaks the
speed limit, but doesn't get a ticket, they
can't argue the law is not in force. Speed
limits are generally enforced.
Some printed laws and rules are not generally
enforced, if at all. They become obsolete, for
whatever reason, but are not removed from the
books because no one takes the time. A quick
web search brings up any number of examples.
Try it for your own country, state, club, or
society.
The WPX rule requiring the exchange of 59(9)
has not been generally enforced. Perhaps it's
because no one has ever broken the rule -
however unlikely.
In view of the actions of some stations in this
year's WPX (not including myself) this situation
may change. The offenders broke the rule, and
the WPX sponsors have to consider their options.
If they ignore the offence, it means that they
have not enforced the rule this time. This, in
turn, implies they will probably not enforce it
in future. Either that, or the rule has lapsed.
There's general agreement on this mailing list
that the rule has not lapsed. As such, the WPX
sponsors have no option but to enforce the rule,
and apply an appropriate penalty or warning.
For the future, I think it's unfortunate that
contesters could be penalised for not saying or
sending 59(9) in every WPX QSO - something which
has lost any meaning or significance it once had.
I'm asking the WPX sponsors to consider making
the on-air exchange of 59(9) optional.
73,
Paul EI5DI
__________________________________________________
Notes:
Some argue that a QSO is not valid without the
exchange of reports. A valid QSO is, at minimum,
the two-way exchange and acknowledgement of
callsigns.
Contrary to popular belief, no signal report of
any kind is required on QSLs for any ARRL award,
including DXCC and WAS.
Contest loggers automatically pre-fill 59(9) on
all contest QSOs. They are logged and they appear
as normal in Cabrillo logs. The software doesn't
know you didn't say/send it, any more than it
knows you don't always say/send your own call
when running, or the other station's call while
searching.
How would WPX change?
QSO rates are likely to increase slightly.
Entrants could expect to receive 59(9) in some
QSOs and not in others.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|