On 17 Mar 98, Dale Jones K5MM wrote:
> Re: Suggestion for a solution to BIG GUN W's not logging other W's,
> and being called a lid for not doing so.
Apparently K5MM takes exception to my use of the word "lid", which
means a poor operator, to describe someone engaging in poor
operating practices.
I haven't mentioned the lid by callsign in any public postings on
this subject and haven't seen his callsign mentioned publicly. I
cc:'ed the lid on the email I originally sent to K3EST that
addressed my concern. So, no-one should take offense at my using the
word "lid" unless you got private email from me identifying you as
that lid.
> Isn't it interesting that AA4GA's suggestion for a solution to the
> US Big Guns not logging US callers in CQ-WW (for zone Credit) is to
> PENALIZE the other guy (The BIG GUN in his example). What a bunch
> of B.S.
The status quo is to penalize the LITTLE GUN - why don't you consider
that B.S.? After all, in my case the BIG GUN is the one who didn't
log me. We definitely worked: I called him saying "AA4GA for the
mult"; he worked me, I thought everything was fine. It was my last
QSO in the contest...I remember the contact. The multiplier was
removed from MY log - why should that be acceptable?
> To penalize the US opetator for not logging another US operator
> will drive him to NOT WORK ANY other US station.
It is better for the guy to not work US stations than to work them
and not log them.
> In a "carrot and stick" incentive program, sticks obviously don't
> work very well in an optional/hobby activity like ham radio
> contesting.
So you advocate elimination of all penalties in contesting?
> All 40 CQ zones in the world is available to every American ham to
> work WITHOUT working ONE other American-based call sign.
True enough, but please tell me how to get the A_/K/N/W multiplier
without working a US station. The multiplier in this contest is
Zones PLUS Countries.
> It would certainly be "progressive" to consider a positive solution
> FIRST, as Gary K7FR suggested in his posting.
<SLICE>
> So, I do not agree with Gary K7FR's suggestion of providing for
> points to be earned by US guys working other US guys, but do like
> his idea of a positive (encouraging) solution suggestion.
<DICE>
> Without defending the Big Gun for not logging you, trying to figure out
> some penalty for him not doing so doesn't cut it. That'll just drive
> him away.
I don't agree with giving US-US QSOs any points in CQWW either,
that's why I made several alternative suggestions in my post, only
one of which mentioned a penalty. Instead of fixating on the one
possibility that I listed that mentioned a penalty, how do you feel
about the other ideas, and what is your suggestion for a "positive"
solution?
I have heard other US operators say they don't log US stations in
this contest, and I have seen other US operators actually work US
stations and not log them. Yes, usually it's stations that probably
don't realize US-US Qs don't count for anything, but why assume
that? Why not just log everyone you work? And I operate in
multi-op situations a lot, so I realize that it's a PITA to work
zero-point Qs.
And, just for the record, I support corporal punishment and capital
punishment, although I consider both types inappropriate for contest
violations! ;-)
73 de Lee
--
Lee Hiers - AA4GA
Cornelia, GA
mailto:aa4ga@contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|