Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules

[Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@citlink.net>]

/"//Working through a string of dupes for zero pointers is no help to 
one's score."/
I agree, from the running station viewpoint, it is not a help to their 
score.
But I take exception from a non-runner perspective... It's a big help to 
the S&Pers and it helps separate the wheat from the chaff.. The "chaff" 
being those operators who rely on the !00% (perceived) accuracy of the 
spotting network and blindly work a "new" station without listening. 
They are rightly delayed and further penalized for a busted call in 
their log. That helps my score by diminishing their score!
73 de Bob - KØRC n MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 6/24/2014 7:50 PM, K4XS via CQ-Contest wrote:
> Without the "instant gratification" nonsense and the snide comments  about
> S/P now being point and click....
>   
> It just makes common sense to ID often.  In these days of  point and click,
> how many times are big gun stations suddenly besieged by a  string of
> dupes...as a result of a bad spot.  Working  through a string of dupes for zero
> pointers is no help to one's  score.
>   
> You give the call often and it happens less.  When I was KH7XS  out in
> Hawaii I could always tell when I had been misspotted...the dupes would  start
> piling up and then I would slowly and clearly give the call after each  QSO.
> Usually if I was running a 250+ hour I would just give it every  two or
> three times.
>   
> Personally, you don't give your call and you're S-9, and after the  third
> time I'll call blindly.  It's a dupe?  Tough, give your call  more often.
>   
> K4XS
>   
>   
> _______________________________________________
> 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