There are still some that do not send 599 when required by the rules. They seem
to get confused when I REPLY RST? RST?.
73, John N1JM
> On Feb 13, 2017, at 12:55 PM, Tim Gennett <timk9wx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sadly, the ARRL's Contest Update email newsletter had this in the January
> 11 edition's Conversation" section. Quoting in part:
>
> "In last weekend's ARRL RTTY Roundup, as in past contests, I encountered
> some non-standard exchanges. .....
>
> "A number of times in response to my CQ I received "N9ADG <THEIRCALL> 599
> <THEIRSTATE>". This was off-putting the first few times. I treated them as
> if they'd only sent me their call -- I sent them my exchange, waited for
> their exchange, and then acknowledged theirs. This happened a few times,
> and getting the same unexpected message from a number of different callers
> caused me to consider why those operators were doing this. In that
> consideration, I've come around to thinking that perhaps these callers are
> on to something.
>
> "If I could make the assumption that the calling station wouldn't send me
> their exchange unless they were sure of mine, then all I really needed was
> their information. Implicit in them sending this message type as the
> response to my CQ is their acknowledgement that they have my information.
> In response to their information, all I really needed to do was acknowledge
> theirs. So I tested this theory - the next time I called CQ and got back
> this exchange, I sent "<THEIRCALL> 599 WA TU N9ADG CQ". The sky didn't
> fall. The caller didn't seem to get confused. More contacts got logged.
>
> "This technique, if executed correctly, could *save time and increase the
> rate for both sides*. That description applies to other techniques that are
> commonly accepted and used, like tail-ending, single-dit QSLs, and call
> stacking. As reflected in the soapbox comments in the after-contest
> reports, there are some operators that don't like this development. But
> perhaps
> this is the emergence of a new RTTY technique."
> Then, in the January 25 issue's Busted QSO's section: "N8SS, K9YC, and N0AX
> all wrote in to discourage any non-standard or shortened exchanges."
>
> Hopefully, this will not become a growing trend.
>
> Tim K9WX
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188@ac0c.com> wrote:
>
>> Bet this this is more new guys jumping into their first contest. Or maybe
>> new to the logger in RTTY. What surprises me is that guys get so far into
>> this without figuring out the proper sequence. I remember one fellow was
>> at a 2xx Q count! Then again it may be a case of hitting the wrong button.
>>
>> My solution to this backward sequence is to send my end of the exchange,
>> and then flow right into a CQ, exactly as Tim shows below. About 25-50% of
>> the time the guy sends some sort of TSK message and I reply again with the
>> TU WPX AC0C CQ call. Have not had any frequency ownership confusion that I
>> know of.
>>
>> 73/jeff/ac0c
>> www.ac0c.com
>> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: john@kk9a.com
>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 12:32 PM
>>
>> To: rtty@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Upside-down RTTY contest QSO's
>>
>> I noticed this in Roundup last month and now in WPX, except I do not
>> recall seeing my callsign in their exchange, just their call and a report.
>> I typically ignore these callers for a while, trying to figure out if they
>> are calling me or working someone else on frequency. If they are
>> persistent then I assume that they are calling me and I gave them a report
>> and they disappear. I am not sure where they are learning these habits,
>> perhaps good QSO examples should be shown in the rules.
>>
>> John KK9A
>>
>>
>> To: <rtty@contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Upside-down RTTY contest QSO's
>> From: "David G3YYD" <g3yyd@btinternet.com>
>> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:55:01 -0000
>>
>>
>> I have a simple solution. If someone does this then I ignore them and carry
>> on CQ or work another caller. Ok I may lose a Q but it is the only quick
>> way
>> to educate someone.
>>
>> I find ignoring them is essential when I am SO2R contesting as I may well
>> be
>> working 2 pile ups at the same time and need to keep the sequence going.
>>
>> 73 David G3YYD aka M7T in contests.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa
>> Sent: 13 February 2017 17:41
>> To: rtty@contesting.com
>> Subject: [RTTY] Upside-down RTTY contest QSO's
>>
>> I had maybe 20-30 callers this weekend (out of 1600+ Q's) who had what I
>> call "upside down" exchanges.
>>
>> I call: CQ CQ TEST N3QE N3QE CQ
>>
>> These upside down guys come back to my CQ with: N3QE DE F1AKE 599 014 014
>> 014
>>
>> Yes, that's right, he doesn't just send his call, he sends his exchange in
>> reply to my CQ.
>>
>> I then reply with my usual macro: F1AKE 599 1245 1245 F1AKE
>>
>> Then, well, things kinda fall apart. Sometimes the guy just disappears,
>> after all he did get both sides of the exchange. Other times he comes back
>> with: N3QE TU DE F1AKE SK
>>
>> Then anyone listening in is confused. Does N3QE own the run frequency or
>> F1AKE? It's not at all obvious.
>>
>> I first encountered this unusual upside-down style when I was at the
>> "Digital modes" Field Day desk a few years ago. On field day, maybe 30% of
>> RTTY Q's and more than half of the PSK31 QSO's had this upside-down style.
>> I would guess that there's some common digital-mode software package that
>> suggests this as the default S&P exchange macro, or maybe the
>> software-package doesn't even differentiate between RUN and S&P Macros.
>>
>> Is there any hope of educating these guys? They seem to be increasingly
>> prevalent in contests. I wanted to start lecturing these guys over RTTY as
>> to what they're doing wrong but didn't want to waste the time, and maybe
>> they're using some dumb software that has to work this way or something.
>>
>> I feel that very related, I would be running a frequency, working a guy,
>> not
>> even close to done working him, and some local guys who I know are PSK
>> enthusiasts would show up on the frequency and call the guy with an
>> exchange, acting like they had NO IDEA what phase the QSO or who was
>> running
>> the frequency.
>>
>> Tim N3QE
>> ___________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|