CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey Results - part 2

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey Results - part 2
From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:25:18 -0600 (CST)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
 A unique is not always a busted call.  Obviously or not.


For example:


ARRL DX SSB 1984, back when I was young and foolish (as opposed to now, when 
I'm merely foolish).  I heard FG7CM calling CQ on 15 SSB, so I called him.  
Turned out he wasn't in or interested in the contest; he was kind enough to 
give me the QSO anyway (and I apologized for calling him), and then said he was 
leaving the frequency.  (And did not answer the stations who called him as soon 
as I signed with him).


Presuming that he truly did not work anyone else, it would definitely have been 
a unique.  And would definitely not be a busted call.


So why should I lose the contact during log checking?  Because he chose to work 
no on else?


I have no issue with obviously busted calls being removed during log checking.  
But if it is a legitimate call, and there are indications that the station was 
legitimately on the air (which is much easier to "prove" these days than it was 
30+ years ago), IMHO, it should not be automatically removed.


73, ron w3wn
 

On 12/30/15, James Cain wrote:

I am shocked by the votes on "Remove Uniques?" Who could oppose removing 
uniques, which are, as CQ's official comment says, obviously busted call signs? 

If I bust anything in a contact, and it's indisuptable from log-checking, I 
want the sponsor to remove the contact. Period. 

K1TN
_______________________________________________
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>