Tree wrote:
> Or this - "Should I get on and work some guys in the contest? They
> are sending so fast. Let me call one, WOW! he QRSed to my speed the
> first time! I don't have to feel bad about asking him to repeat his
> exchange and take up his time. This is fun! Let me see who else
> I can work".
Hmmm... seems to me that a simpler, less-subject-to-controversy
solution would be what I learned to do:
- CQ at a speed (eg. 30 wpm) that most everyone can get your call after
a time or two. With all these wonderful "new" 1x2s, this shouldn't be
difficult.
- Set a speed in your head (ie. 20 wpm or so). Someone answers you above
this speed, no QRS. Someone answers you at or below this speed, slow
down
to match with your reply. When you're done, bump the speed back up.
Can't
speak for everyone, but with a 600+ Q part time effort this year plus
over
serious efforts over the past few, I cannot remember ONE request for QRS
and
repeat doing it this way - not one. Does that say something? Dunno. :)
If everyone makes it known that this is the way things will go,
newcomers might
not feel so intimidated because they know that the speed demons (guilty)
will slow
for them if they give the right "sign" up front in the Q. IMHO, the time
lost
by slowing down for a few dozen Qs will far overbalance the time lost by
numerous repeats and contacts never made because "he was just sending
too fast".
Will Tree's "technical" solution to the problem attract more
participants from
the ranks? Maybe, but I think I'd rather see a solution that uses better
operating
skills rather than reliance on a database. That seems, at least to me,
to detract
from the contest as an _operating_ event that increases your skills.
However, that's only my opinion - I could be wrong...
--
Greg Becker NA2N na2n@ifam.com
FFII/EMT, Safety Officer, Milan Vol FD / Rescue Squad
Ideas For American Manufacturers / Rock Temple Entertainment
>From aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) Mon Nov 11 13:18:23 1996
From: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Subject: To dupe or not to dupe..
Message-ID: <961011091614.JAA11695@gate.iterated.com>
>From: Scott Ellington, sdelling@facstaff.wisc.edu
>
>Even in SS, is there a way to be absolutely sure the contact is
>a mutual dupe, that doesn't take longer than just completing the
>QSO?
There's no way to predict this in advance. If one station volunteers
"Worked Before", the other may disagree, hence the exchange would happen
anyway. It is the disagreements in worked before status that cause
problems.
If you are running stations, it would appear your best alternative is to
go ahead and work them (even in SS). While S & P, giving worked before
information can sometimes save you a little bit of time, but only after
half the exchange has already been given (by the running station).
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
|