Re: [CQ-Contest] The legacy of not working dupes

["Richard F. DiDonna NN3W" <richnn3w@gmail.com>]

As a general rule, I always work dupes.  I have one and only one 
exception: if I have a significant pile (i.e., 3 callers+)  in 
Sweepstakes, I will call out dupe if I am pretty certain I've worked 
someone before.  The chances of losing one of the other two remaining 
stations is too great to risk - given that this is a work a station once 
per contest event and casual ops are very fickle in Sweeps.
73 Rich NN3W

On 1/7/2020 12:14 AM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> The "no dupes" came from the fact that it was very difficult to weed the dupes out of the logs back 
> before computerized logging.  So "loading up on dupes" was a way of "padding the log" and 
> was penalized early on in the score keeping.  Today the reverse is true.
>
> The days of sending with one hand and paper logging and dupe sheeting with the 
> other are long gone too.
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+edwards=sbelectronics.com@contesting.com] On Behalf 
> Of Jeff Blaine
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 9:55 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The legacy of not working dupes
>
> It was pretty funny Mike.  But unfortunately in a "watch me shoot my
> foot" sort of way.  I got into contesting way too late and missed
> whatever it was that drove the no-dupes obsession back in the day.  Must
> have had something to do with paper logging or labor or something like
> that.  I'm sure there was a good reason the practice got started.
> Clearly that original momentum has plenty of legs even now when it seems
> the no-dupe thing is actually bad for biz.
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> www.ac0c.com
>
>
> On 1/6/20 6:17 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA wrote:
> > Jeff,
> >
> >    
> >
> > Like you, I always work dupes.  I work very little RTTY, but in the bigger
> > CW contests, there always seem to be a very small # of EU's that will work
> > me 2, 3 or even 7 times.  I can only surmise they trawl up and down the
> > bottom end of 20m working the stronger NA stations to 'help them out' in the
> > contest and are probably are not using a logging program.  I had to tell one
> > guy one time after the 5th or 6th QSO in an hour or so "No more!"
> >
> >    
> >
> > I loved the "don't think so" you got. I found that very funny (and very sad
> > at the same time) (if that makes sense.)
> >
> >    
> >
> > That'd be a new one on me.  Mike VE9AA
> >
> >    
> >
> > "..I was S&P and called a guy that had apparently worked me - but was not in
> > my log.  I got the "BEFORE" reply which I get a few times each contest and
> > for that case, I have a short macro that says "NIL - plz work again".  And
> > to my complete amazement the guy sent a reply - apparently typed by hand as
> > the pace was a bit slower than normal macro exchange speed - "dont think
> > so."   Wow, never had someone tell me that.   So the net result of this is
> > he lost a point because he's not in my log and that will pop in the cross
> > check. And we must have wasted a minute or two doing the dance.  Good move
> > all around, OM! .."
> >
> >    
> >
> > alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> >
> > www.ac0c.com
> >
> >    
> >
> >    
> >
> >    
> >
> > Mike, Coreen & Corey
> >
> > Keswick Ridge, NB
> >
> >    
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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