David is correct.
The five elements are required, but sequence is inconsequential.
This is proven by the validity of QSOs where you must walk the a casual op
through it.
They count as much as any other.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 16:41, "David Siddall" <hhamwv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The requirement is that the 5 elements you list be exchanged. There is no
> explicit requirement as to order of conveyance, only an example. We all
> understand that as a practical matter using the order in the example
> facilates the exchange and therefore use it. It is to our advantage to do so,
> this is a timed competition and speed of exchange is paramount. Correctly or
> incorrectly, I remember an ARRL contest manager opining that the order is
> required, but IMHO that opinion has not been incorporated into the rules, nor
> should it. To borrow from a recent CQWW thread, should an op be DQed for
> walking a "Sunday driver" through the exchange information without requiring
> the Sunday drive to perform the difficult task of parrotting back all 5
> elements in the requisite order in the same breath? That's the only foolish
> result that a mandatory element order would accomplish. Why would anyone
> want that in Sweepstakes, which seeks to attract participation?
>
> 73, Dave K3ZJ
>
>
>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 5:00 PM, RT Clay <rt_clay@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> The callsign requirement is clearly stated in the SS rules, look it up:
>>
>> 4. Contest Exchange: The required exchange consists of:
>>
>>
>> 4.1. A consecutive serial number;
>> 4.2. Precedence;
>> 4.3. Your Callsign
>> 4.4. Check
>> 4.5. ARRL/RAC Section (click here for the official list)
>>
>>
>> I also noticed that the rules on the ARRL web page were recently changed to
>> address the issue of operating more than 24 hours:
>>
>> 2.4. Scores will be calculated from contacts logged during the first 24
>> hours of operation.
>> Clarification: the intent of this rule is to limit operating time (listening
>> or transmitting) to
>> 24 hours. Contacts logged after 24 hours of operation will not be counted
>> toward the
>> final score, there is no penalty for including those contacts in a submitted
>> log, and the
>> station contacted is eligible to receive credit for the contact.
>>
>> As of October 24, 2.4 used to just say (thanks Internet Wayback Machine!):
>>
>> 2.4 All entries may operate no more than 24 of the 30 hours.
>>
>> Tor
>> N4OGW
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ve4xt@mymts.net" <ve4xt@mymts.net>
>> To: David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Automation = lost essential skills
>>
>> I remember the lengthy discussion, and IIRC, there was no consensus: namely,
>> that the inclusion of a sample wasn't necessarily an indication that the
>> rules demanded it.
>>
>> However, I like the use of the example and it kinda throws me when an op
>> omits his call (having already sent it), but I do not know of any operators
>> who receive any kind of sanction for same.
>>
>> 73, Kelly
>> ve4xt
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 12:12, "David Siddall" <hhamwv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kelly,
>>>
>>> You are right in my book too. But one exception is sweepstakes. I don't
>>> know the rationale, but some years ago the ARRL contest manager ruled that
>>> in sweepstakes only discrete complete exchanges are allowed. This extra
>>> requirement doesn't seem to appear explicitly in the current rules (at
>>> least that I can find), but I remember a lengthy thread on the subject on
>>> this reflector.
>>>
>>> Example 1: NOT PERMITTED even though all required exchange information
>>> transmitted & received.
>>>
>>> VE4XT: CQ CQ SS de VE4XT
>>> K3ZJ: K3ZJ
>>> VE4XT: K3ZJ 145 A 66 MB
>>>
>>> Example 2: Required exchange necessitates repeating call.
>>>
>>> VE4XT: CQ CQ SS de VE4XT
>>> K3ZJ: K3ZJ
>>> VE4XT: K3ZJ 145 A VE4XT 66 MB
>>>
>>> 73, Dave K3ZJ
>>>
>>> *-.-. --.-*
>>>
>>> *ve4xt at mymts.net <http://mymts.net>* ve4xt at mymts.net
>>> <cq-contest%40contesting.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BCQ-Contest%5D%20Automation%20%3D%20lost%20essential%20skills&In-Reply-To=%3CSNT401-EAS3295C25EFCA570A4A15549AFEE10%40phx.gbl%3E>
>>> *Wed Nov 20 22:27:59 EST 2013*
>>>
>>> That depends. If the receiving station heard the callsign, then the
>>> callsign was sent, even if people who came late to the frequency
>>> didn't hear it.
>>>
>>> An example:
>>>
>>> qrz, w1xyz
>>> (vy2zm and g3tuc are now listening and know who is on frequency.
>>> (IOW, they've heard w1xyz send his call))
>>> vy2zm
>>> vy2zm 599 05
>>> 599 05
>>> tu
>>> g3tuc
>>> g3tuc 599 05
>>> 599 14
>>> tu
>>> k1zz
>>> k1zz 599 05
>>> CL?
>>> w1xyz
>>> r w1xyz 599 05
>>>
>>> In my book, all three QSOs are legit. Everybody received w1xyz's call.
>>>
>>> Am I right?
>>>
>>> 73, Kelly
>>> ve4xt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
|