Paul,
I don't think you understand the origins of this particular contest. It
rather evolved out of the traffic handling system where message formats
and headers are very specific, and the required exchange for Sweepstakes
adheres to that historical precedent. The exchange is supposed to be
sent exactly as specified ... it isn't up to the participant to decide
whether or not part of it is redundant or unnecessary. People who
eliminate their callsign in the SS exchange cheat by cutting significant
time off a lengthy exchange in a contest where winning or losing
typically boils down to a mere handful of contacts.
Even allowing for the probability that you weren't aware of that,
though, I'm rather flabbergasted that you ... the upholder of purity in
all things RF ... would suggest that people who clearly cheat to gain an
advantage in a contest should not be DQ'd. I'm really having a hard
time rationalizing those two positions.
Dave AB7E
On 11/10/2010 5:45 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> On 10/11/2010 11:49, KI9A@aol.com wrote:
>
>> ... THEY BROKE the rules by not sending their
>> call as part of the exchange!!!
> Really, should we make it a federal offense?
>
> > I certainly does not make it right to do
>> this, just because you think the rules need changed...
> I respectfully suggest that any contest which requires
> entrants to duplicate information on-air (for no apparent
> good reason - unlike Sprints), but log the same information
> once only, might need its rules revised.
>
>> Not sure how many ARRL SS's you have participated in,
> I am entitled to comment because -
>
> 1. I'm a subscriber to this mailing list
> 2. I'm an ARRL member
> 3. I write and sell software which directly supports SS
> (and many other contests I have not participated in).
>
> but why are you so
>> concerned about this subject?
> Because I'm a contester. SS is not a stroll in the park,
> it's a contest and, as such, unnecessary repetition tends
> to waste time.
>
>> I looked at my notes, I had 14 out of almost 700 stations do this. I
>> asked for a fill from each of them, in order to make the QSO legit.
> This is on the same level as insisting on others sending
> leading zeros in serial numbers. You were asking them to
> say or send something that you didn't need, because you
> had already typed their callsign in the callsign field of
> your logger, and you were not going to type it all over
> again - your conscience was clear.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|