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

[Joe <nss@mwt.net>]

In the back of my mind I remember the penalty was severe also for 
working a dupe.
I don't know if it was true or not, it is 40+ years ago after-all, But I 
remember of course you lost the credit of the dupe contact, but I also 
remember you were penalized by they removed the QSO before and after the 
dupe!
So you lost the dupe points and even possibly two more contacts that 
even could have been mults even!
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 1/6/2020 11:14 PM, 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