>
>
>Now, on to the latest issue of QST....
>
>Nothing directly related to ham radio in front cover photo of a river
>paddleboat and bridge (wait a minute!, maybe this is a recent Field Day site,
>that bridge was possibly used as a Beverage antenna for 160, or the boom for
>a 80/160 yagi, and the river current turned the paddle wheel which was
>connected to a generator; WOW!).
>
Hey, that's a photo from scenic Peoria, home of the 1996 ARRL Convention
(and a scant 100 miles from here!)
C U there!
73, Zack W9SZ
Urbana, IL
>From floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) Thu Jul 18 11:41:33 1996
From: floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960718104133.2837c6d6@interpath.com>
I receieved this message today. I am just another ham in a contest and have
nothing do with rules or policy so I thought I would post it to the
reflector since it is a question concerning the contest. If anyone can help
the gentleman please respond to him direct.
The below message does not reflect any my personal views.
73's Jim
>From: i4jmy@s55tcp.ampr.org
>To: floydjr@interpath.com
>Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
>
>I haven't well anderstood...PI4AA & W1AW/3, one with over 4300 qso and the
>other with more than 8000 qso, are in a new IARU category ??
>
>MULTI MULTI ???
>
>DO I REMEMBER BADLY THAT ONLY MULTI SINGLE (with 10' rule) IS EXISTING IN
>THE IARU CONTEST ???
>
>OR SOMEONE DID WORK 334 QSO X MINUTE FOR 24 HOURS WITH ONE TRANSMITTER AND
>ONE BAND AT A TIME ???
>
>I wait for your answer (what these station sent you with their declared), I'll
>check again the rules, and then we shall see what to do.
>
>Tank You in advance for the help and for your very excellent Hard Work
>
>73s de I4JMY
>
>
>E-Mail I4JMY@ljutcp.hamradio.si
>&ex
>
>
>From ab1u@SNET.Net (Rick AB1U) Thu Jul 18 14:41:28 1996
From: ab1u@SNET.Net (Rick AB1U) (Rick AB1U)
Subject: WRTC: A Judge Comments
Message-ID: <9607181341.AA34934@CT1.SNET.Net>
At 02:20 AM 7/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>As three busloads of contesters wended their way through Napa
>Valley the Monday after WRTC, a few of them suggested that I do a
>"post-contest" summary of the event along the lines of what I have
>written after some of the major contests. So even though N0AX and
>perhaps others by now have beaten me to the punch, here it is.
(snip,snip)
>
>Thanks, WRTC, Inc., for a once-in-a-lifetime experience!
>
> Very 73,
>
> Fred Laun, K3ZO
>
>
>
The Tom Clancy of amateur radio does it again! Thanks Fred,
73, Rick, AB1U
>From rdidonna@tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna) Thu Jul 18 14:49:19 1996
From: rdidonna@tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna) (Rich DiDonna)
Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
Message-ID: <01BB748E.C9C30580@Uche.tacarlson.com>
I thought that I remembered seeing that HQ stations could run multiple
transmitters during IARU.... My mind could be going, but I think that I
remember that being the case.
Rich KI6ZH
----------
From: Jimmy R. Floyd[SMTP:floydjr@Interpath.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 1996 9:46 AM
To: CQ-CONTEST@tgv.com
Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
I receieved this message today. I am just another ham in a contest and have
nothing do with rules or policy so I thought I would post it to the
reflector since it is a question concerning the contest. If anyone can help
the gentleman please respond to him direct.
The below message does not reflect any my personal views.
73's Jim
>From: i4jmy@s55tcp.ampr.org
>To: floydjr@interpath.com
>Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
>
>I haven't well anderstood...PI4AA & W1AW/3, one with over 4300 qso and the
>other with more than 8000 qso, are in a new IARU category ??
>
>MULTI MULTI ???
>
>DO I REMEMBER BADLY THAT ONLY MULTI SINGLE (with 10' rule) IS EXISTING IN
>THE IARU CONTEST ???
>
>OR SOMEONE DID WORK 334 QSO X MINUTE FOR 24 HOURS WITH ONE TRANSMITTER AND
>ONE BAND AT A TIME ???
>
>I wait for your answer (what these station sent you with their declared), I'll
>check again the rules, and then we shall see what to do.
>
>Tank You in advance for the help and for your very excellent Hard Work
>
>73s de I4JMY
>
>
>E-Mail I4JMY@ljutcp.hamradio.si
>&ex
>
>
>From rdidonna@tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna) Thu Jul 18 14:49:19 1996
From: rdidonna@tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna) (Rich DiDonna)
Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
Message-ID: <01BB748E.C9C30580@Uche.tacarlson.com>
I thought that I remembered seeing that HQ stations could run multiple
transmitters during IARU.... My mind could be going, but I think that I
remember that being the case.
Rich KI6ZH
----------
From: Jimmy R. Floyd[SMTP:floydjr@Interpath.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 1996 9:46 AM
To: CQ-CONTEST@tgv.com
Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
I receieved this message today. I am just another ham in a contest and have
nothing do with rules or policy so I thought I would post it to the
reflector since it is a question concerning the contest. If anyone can help
the gentleman please respond to him direct.
The below message does not reflect any my personal views.
73's Jim
>From: i4jmy@s55tcp.ampr.org
>To: floydjr@interpath.com
>Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
>
>I haven't well anderstood...PI4AA & W1AW/3, one with over 4300 qso and the
>other with more than 8000 qso, are in a new IARU category ??
>
>MULTI MULTI ???
>
>DO I REMEMBER BADLY THAT ONLY MULTI SINGLE (with 10' rule) IS EXISTING IN
>THE IARU CONTEST ???
>
>OR SOMEONE DID WORK 334 QSO X MINUTE FOR 24 HOURS WITH ONE TRANSMITTER AND
>ONE BAND AT A TIME ???
>
>I wait for your answer (what these station sent you with their declared), I'll
>check again the rules, and then we shall see what to do.
>
>Tank You in advance for the help and for your very excellent Hard Work
>
>73s de I4JMY
>
>
>E-Mail I4JMY@ljutcp.hamradio.si
>&ex
>
>
>From snace@tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov (Steve Nace) Thu Jul 18 16:19:56 1996
From: snace@tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov (Steve Nace) (Steve Nace)
Subject: K7U
Message-ID: <v01510100ae1405423837@[192.77.86.212]>
K3ZO writes:
>Thus when K7U was detected as a non-existent
>call in the log I left it in, because I had heard that station very
>clearly call the boys at K6N on a couple of bands.
Is K7U a legitimate callsign? I worked him/her during Field Day and now the
IARU. Anyone else work 'em? Please respond direct.
de Hose KN5H op K7UP
\\\|///
( O O )
_______________________________( )___oOO____________________________
| Steven K. Nace KN5H Phone: 505-525-6205 |
| AlliedSignal Technical Svcs E-Mail: Snace@tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov |
| Spacecraft Engineering Group Alt E-mail:steven@zianet.com |
| NASA White Sands Complex Fax: 505-525-6229 |
| Las Cruces, NM 88004 Alt Fax: 505-527-7223 |
+_________________________Ooo________________________________________+
|__| |__|
|| ||
|| ||
(__) (__)
>From snace@tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov (Steve Nace) Thu Jul 18 16:37:57 1996
From: snace@tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov (Steve Nace) (Steve Nace)
Subject: K7U
Message-ID: <v01510102ae140a8273e6@[192.77.86.212]>
K3ZO writes:
>Thus when K7U was detected as a non-existent
>call in the log I left it in, because I had heard that station very
>clearly call the boys at K6N on a couple of bands.
Is K7U a legitimate callsign? I worked him/her during Field Day and now the
IARU. Anyone else work 'em? Please respond direct.
de Hose KN5H op K7UP
\\\|///
( O O )
_______________________________( )___oOO____________________________
| Steven K. Nace KN5H Phone: 505-525-6205 |
| AlliedSignal Technical Svcs E-Mail: Snace@tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov |
| Spacecraft Engineering Group Alt E-mail:steven@zianet.com |
| NASA White Sands Complex Fax: 505-525-6229 |
| Las Cruces, NM 88004 Alt Fax: 505-527-7223 |
+_________________________Ooo________________________________________+
|__| |__|
|| ||
|| ||
(__) (__)
>From TREY@TGV.COM (Trey Garlough) Thu Jul 18 15:51:27 1996
From: TREY@TGV.COM (Trey Garlough) (Trey Garlough)
Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
Message-ID: <837701487.570577.TREY@tgv.com>
> I thought that I remembered seeing that HQ stations could run multiple
> transmitters during IARU.... My mind could be going, but I think that I
> remember that being the case.
Before this gets out of hand, I wanted to comment that yes, HQ
stations are multi-multi in the Radiosport contest, er, uh, I mean,
the World Radiosport Team Championship, no wait, I mean the
Bicentennial Contest, I mean, the IARU HF Championship. Yeeeaah,
that's the ticket!
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From seay@alaska.net (Del Seay) Thu Jul 18 15:14:21 1996
From: seay@alaska.net (Del Seay) (Del Seay)
Subject: K7U
References: <v01510100ae1405423837@[192.77.86.212]>
Message-ID: <31EE46BD.64CA@alaska.net>
Steve Nace wrote:
>
> K3ZO writes:
>
> >Thus when K7U was detected as a non-existent
> >call in the log I left it in, because I had heard that station very
> >clearly call the boys at K6N on a couple of bands.
>
> Is K7U a legitimate callsign? I worked him/her during Field Day and now the
> IARU. Anyone else work 'em? Please respond direct.
>
> de Hose KN5H op K7UP
>
> \\\|///
> ( O O )
> _______________________________( )___oOO____________________________
> | Steven K. Nace KN5H Phone: 505-525-6205 |
> | AlliedSignal Technical Svcs E-Mail: Snace@tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov |
> | Spacecraft Engineering Group Alt E-mail:steven@zianet.com |
> | NASA White Sands Complex Fax: 505-525-6229 |
> | Las Cruces, NM 88004 Alt Fax: 505-527-7223 |
> +_________________________Ooo________________________________________+
> |__| |__|
> || ||
> || ||
> (__) (__)
K7U is a special event call from Utah. The operator was K7UOT,
and yes - it is a legitimate call!
de KL7HF
>From ik0hbn@isa.it ( IK0HBN ) Thu Jul 18 16:48:51 1996
From: ik0hbn@isa.it ( IK0HBN ) ( IK0HBN )
Subject: WRTC notes: W6D (long)
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19960718174549.2347fdc8@net.isa.it>
At 05.23 18/07/96 PDT, you wrote:
>
>
> WRTC -- 1996
>
> Call: W6D Country: United States
> Category: WRTC
>
> BAND QSO QSO-PTS PTS/Q ZONES CTY HQ STNS
>
> 40 552 1005 1.82 18 14 1
> 20 917 1635 1.78 33 43 13
> 15 422 593 1.41 19 16 4
> 10 282 417 1.48 9 5 1
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Totals 2173 3650 1.68 79 78 19
>
> Score: 642,400 points (submitted score)
>
>Operator List: Tom Frenaye, K1KI and Phil Koch, K3UA
>
BIG SNIP.....
>The log comparisons generally turned up two kinds of problems by
>finding "unique" QSOs (those worked by only one station). The first is
>where a callsign was copied incorrectly (we had our share). This is
>where, for example, 25 people worked WA1ABC and one station worked
>WA1ABD. The second is where a callsign may be OK but no one else
>worked it, and no others are similar (like our QSO with IK0HBN). Not
>all of these uniques were deleted from logs - the judges made the final
>decisions.
>
SNIP
>
>Two multipliers were deleted (IK0HBN on 20m and LU3AVA on 10m) because
>they didn't show up in other logs. I assume the three busted QSOs we
>made during the contest and filled in with W6D were also deleted.
>
>>From what I know about ARRL and CQ log checking, actually deleting
>unique QSOs without verification is not done - but, a high unique rate
>is a good indicator that there may be problems to check into. Plans for
>handling unique QSOs differently by WRTC log checkers was communicated
>to all teams beforehand.
>
HI TOM,
believe me: I don't want starting a polemic....WRTC is over.
Sorry if judges wiped our qso only considering the matter I worked only W6D.
As I wrote in my last message....why they ask us sending our partial logs to
make better checks? I went in hurry to encode my .Bin file and a receipt was
receiving here.....!!??
IMHO I mean that if one makes a mistake, correction would be the least thing to
do.
You missed a multiplier and probably I will miss the lone souvenir from WRTC :
your qsl card.
Sure is that if our qso was wiped, surely no label with my call up will be
printed and rules are clear: do not send qsl card, Committee will send to all
in the logs....hi.
So the offence will become double.
Any way to repair that? Do you need my .bin file? If needed, please let me know.
Ciao Sante.
Sante LILLO (IK0HBN)
Localita' Saineta, 3
01030 Bassano in Teverina (VT) Italy
home telephone: +39 (0) 761-407543 (FAX on request)
E-mail: ik0hbn@isa.it
packet adr: IK0HBN@I0INU.IUMB.ITA.EU
DX cluster : IK0HBN > I0JBL-6
>From HWDX09A@prodigy.com ( ROBERT REED) Thu Jul 18 17:58:05 1996
From: HWDX09A@prodigy.com ( ROBERT REED) ( ROBERT REED)
Subject: MULTIs IN IARU CONTEST
Message-ID: <199607181558.LAA12856@mime4.prodigy.com>
The Society Headquarters stations are a seperate category during the
IARU. They do not count, nor compete, along with other stations. You
will note that when reports are printed of the results that these
usually 10-12 active Society Headquarters Station are listed
seperately in a group by themselves.
Headquarters Stations operate to supply the HQ multiplier for contest
participants. They are allowed to operate in a Multi/Multi status to
provide as many QSO's as possible for the actual competitors.
Officially there is no HQ competition though it is reported in a
special box by score.
Hopefully we will see an additional special section in this years
results for the WRTC participants also.
____
73, Bob Reed, WB2DIN
538 Brewers Bridge Road
Jackson, New Jersey 08527
Internet : hwdx09a@prodigy.com
Packet : wb2din@wt3v.nj
>From TREY@TGV.COM (Trey Garlough) Thu Jul 18 18:49:44 1996
From: TREY@TGV.COM (Trey Garlough) (Trey Garlough)
Subject: WRTC notes: W6D (long)
Message-ID: <837712184.512577.TREY@tgv.com>
> >The log comparisons generally turned up two kinds of problems by
> >finding "unique" QSOs (those worked by only one station). The first is
> >where a callsign was copied incorrectly (we had our share). This is
> >where, for example, 25 people worked WA1ABC and one station worked
> >WA1ABD. The second is where a callsign may be OK but no one else
> >worked it, and no others are similar (like our QSO with IK0HBN). Not
> >all of these uniques were deleted from logs - the judges made the final
> >decisions.
Before this one gets out of hand as well, I feel compelled to make a
few comments. I'm not a spokesperson for the WRTC, but hey, I was
there and I talked to the judges, and this is what I found out.
Firstly, some terminology: Unique does not equal bad. Unique. Bad.
Know the difference.
Secondly, what K1KI wrote above is 100% correct. Read it carefully.
Please don't jump to any hasty conclusions. Also (if I may speak for
K1KI), Tom is not quarelling about how his log was scored, simply
making observations about what happened.
After the dust had settled and the logs were collected, N6AA ran the
usual battery of log checking reports that are used on the CQWW logs
every year. N6AA is an *expert* in the area of log checking, so he is
a good guy to have around. Usually this is an iterative process,
but time is limited in this type of event, so only one cut was taken
at this process.
At this point, it was fairly safe to say that W6X, K6T, W6R, K6P, and
K6C were the top five stations. It was also encouraging to see that
these five teams were at or below the median unique QSO percentage, a
general indication these guys were operating the same contest as the
rest of us.
At this point, the logs for "the pack" (those of us who didn't "cut
the mustard" as N6TJ would say), were parceled out to various judges
to be marked up for score reductions. The judges who did this are
well-known, experienced operators, but not all of them are log
checking *experts*, and no doubt a few errors were made, such as the
one K1KI described. In fact, I lost credit for at least one QSO I
know was valid, but hey, we finished 32nd or something like that,
so I'm not sweating it! :-)
To my knowledge, the logs of "the pack" were not reviewed a second
time because of time constraints.
Then the judges got busy with the top five logs. I think this may
have actually been a subset of the judges, all of whom are log
checking *experts*, that studied these logs. Ultimately, after much
investigation and discussion, all QSOs that were removed from each of
these five logs were agreed upon unanimously by this committee of
experts.
I would trust the log checking done at WRTC more than I would trust
the log checking historically done by *any* magazine. Look at the
advantages these guys had: a collection of judges who are log checking
*experts* and "masters of sport" in hf contesting, all the logs in
electronic form, tape recordings of each operation, a referee
(monitor) at each station during the operation, and face-to-face
access to all the competitors.
On the other hand, there were time constraints. I mentioned above
that building the log checking database is an iterative process, and
there was only pass in the WRTC log checking. This led to the
K6-Ohhhhhhhhh team having an "inflated" unique percentage of 0.6%
because various QSOs with KL7HIR and AH3 stations (we logged them as
/W to keep them from being counted as DX multipliers) showed up as
Unique QSOs because no other stations logged them in exactly the same
manner. This is the type of thing N6AA fixes in later iterations of
the CQWW database every year, when he has months rather than hours to
massage the data.
And finally, for those of you who have read this far, an interesting
observation made during WRTC log checking is that each station had a
number of QSOs with other WRTC stations reported as "not in log." The
current hypothesis is that since there was no 10-minute rule, lots of
band changes were happening, and since radio/computer logging
interfaces were forbidden, people were forgetting to change bands on
their logging programs, leading to QSOs being attriubted to the wrong
band. Of course, by listening to the tapes, you could probably tell
what really happend. Who said log checking was easy? :-)
--Trey, WN4KKN/6
>From k2mm@jzap.com (John LastMinute Zapisek K2MM) Thu Jul 18 19:37:46 1996
From: k2mm@jzap.com (John LastMinute Zapisek K2MM) (John LastMinute Zapisek
K2MM)
Subject: Revised WRTC-96 Final Results
Message-ID: <199607181837.LAA02410@jzap.com>
WRTC-1996 Final Final Results
Call Op#1 Op#2 Judge Host Score QSOs Mults Uniq%
---- ---- ---- ----- --- ----- ---- ----- -----
W6X KR0Y K1TO UA6HZ WA6AHF 761829 2457 183 1.7
K6T K4BAI KM9P W6UM NQ6X 678132 2511 162 1.2
W6R K6LL N2IC WR3G AF6S 655720 2424 169 1.1
K6P VE3EJ VE3IY OH2KI N6UUG 647112 2343 177 2.0
K6C K4UEE N6IG BA1FP WB6PCJ 644059 2355 169 0.9
W6T K5ZD WX3N K6SSS AB6CW 616308 2170 174 1.2
W6D K1KI K3UA AA7FT K6YT 606550 2145 175 1.6
W6Q 9A3A S53R W7NI WA6GFY 598272 2233 164 2.1
W6V KF3P KR2J N6RA WB6YRN 577575 2352 151 1.6
W6P K8CC K5GO K7LXC WB6WSL 568435 2370 149 1.0
K6V W2GD W0UA S59AA KE6HUA 568378 2465 146 2.4
K6W N6TV K7SS N6KT AB6DI 556928 2261 152 1.5
W6I K1AR K1DG S50R KK6WP 547404 2204 156 1.3
W6Y DL1IAO DK3GI NB6G AD6E 545756 1993 167 1.7
K6D DL5XX DL1VJ KJ4VH NF6S 532728 2183 147 2.3
K6R LZ1SA LZ2PO OK2FD N6BT 531552 2256 147 2.1
K6G NP4Z WC4E K5MM K6MA 527592 2238 152 2.8
W6A K3LR WA8YVR AB6NJ KE6OT 523672 2478 134 2.2
K6X UA3DPX RZ9UA AI7B WB6UTY 518666 1960 163 1.7
K6Z JH4NMT JE3MAS W0UN W6YX 512535 2318 141 3.4
W6S LY2IJ LY1DS S50A AA6YQ 509392 1958 158 1.9
W6B S59A S56A I2UIY AE0M 507318 2257 141 1.7
K6Y OK1CF OK2PAY W7RM W6DU 499796 2143 148 2.3
W6H RW1AC RV1AW PY5EG AI6V 497965 1841 163 1.0
K6I JH7PKU JO1BMV CT1BOH KN6VO 488940 2296 145 2.1
K6S ON4UN ON9CIB W3ZZ N6WFK 480326 2120 154 2.4
W6U EA1AK EA4KR N0AX W6JD 470744 1918 152 1.7
W6G JE1JKL JH7WKQ OH2MM N6OM 470237 1984 139 2.0
K6U SM3DMP SM3CER N7NG AJ6V 465075 2165 135 1.1
W6O ZS6EZ ZS6NW VE7SV KV6S 461553 2093 137 1.7
K6O WN4KKN N6TR WA7NIN KW6C 454476 2331 121 0.6
W6E EA7TL EA9KB N2AA K6XV 445356 1871 139 1.6
K6N YT1AD YU1RL K3ZO WB6AFJ 440358 2228 140 3.7
W6W LU6ETB LU/OH0XX I0JBL W6OPO 437016 2319 131 3.3
K6J N2NT KZ2S S57AL KK6EK 426656 1902 134 1.1
W6K F6FGZ F5MUX K5RC W6VG 418375 2276 125 3.1
K6A JH4RHF JA8RWU 9A5W K6SMH 412388 1981 131 2.7
K6H DJ6QT DJ2YA RW9UP N6DA 411376 2353 112 1.6
K6K UT5UGR UT4UZ S59L KG6FR 398399 1863 127 1.3
K6F IT9BLB IT9VDQ UA9BA KM6OH 385280 2000 128 3.1
K6B 9A9A 9A3GW G3SXW AB6YL 383166 1886 126 1.2
K6Q VE7NTT VE7CC K0KR WM6R 362440 1546 130 0.4
K6E HA0MM HA0DU AA6XZ KK6PH 357885 1759 135 4.0
K6M GI0NWG G3OZF K4XU WB6JJJ 357094 1884 132 3.0
W6Z VK5GN VK2AYD RU1AA W6NA 343604 1822 124 2.2
W6J SP6AZT SP9FKQ K6NA K6LM 330876 2023 117 2.4
W6L UN4L UN2L W7YAQ KM6AV 309518 1796 121 4.9
K6L SP9HWN SP9IJU JA7RHJ W6ISO 298178 2149 97 3.7
W6N I4UFH I2VXJ KC7V KE6KXO 269028 1728 106 3.3
W6M PY0FF PY5CC S56M AB6CJ 231066 1580 99 2.6
W6C IN3QBR IT9TQH K8AZ AA6LY 185070 1615 93 5.0
* approximate score, damaged log file:
W6F OH2IW OH1JT KT3Y AG6D 530000* 2100 155 1.2
Demonstration Teams (alphabetically by callsign)
Call Op#1 Op#2 Judge Host QSOs Mults
---- ---- ---- ----- --- ---- -----
AH3C YL2KL YL3DW WZ6Z WZ6Z 1591 140
AH3D BA1OK BA4RC OH2BH W6JZU 1913 120
>From dave@egh.com (David Clemons) Thu Jul 18 19:58:38 1996
From: dave@egh.com (David Clemons) (David Clemons)
Subject: removal of IK0HBN
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607181404.A28013-0100000@newman.egh.com>
This is exactly the concern I voiced when people began to
consider the possibility of using analysis of unique calls to help with
score checking. In my opinion there is absolutely no justification to
remove a call simply on the grounds that it is a unique.
Don't think for a moment that IK0HBN was the only unique call in this
contest. While CQ'ing on 20 meters, K1DC (my friend and contester of
many years ago, Don Benecchi) called me and gave me a qso. I assumed he
was running through the band working DX, and gave me a call because we
are friends. I saw him at our local club meeting three nights later, and
was surprised to find out that I was the only one he worked in the whole
contest. (He was only listening for new DX, and never heard any.) Now I
appreciate the fact that the ARRL and IARU have not gone to the policy of
removing uniques, but evidently if this contest was run by another
organization, my qso with Don would also be history. Haven't we all seen
recent contests which were decided by only a handful of qsos? Both a
recent SS and CQ WW come to my mind.
I think it is one thing to remove 3V8DD (broken call) because the
contest sponsors know that the only station there is 3V8BB, remove P5ABC
because the sponsors know there is no legal operation from that country,
and remove 2x3 calls from countries where the sponsors know that only 2x2
calls are issued. Also, go ahead and remove K1KIK (qrz test de K1KI K) from
a log if K1KI's log shows the contact. These reasons all seem valid. To
remove unique calls for the sake of uniqueness puts an unnecessary burden
on the contest operator. (The only defense against having valid uniques
removed is to make sure we ask every possible casual qso to make sure they
work several other serious entrants. This seems a little absurd.)
73, Dave Clemons K1VUT
|