3rd April 2008
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,
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,
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.
|