Stack usage is not yet well-defined and probably several approaches can be
argued as valid. Here's mine:
1. I am very careful to stack calls in the order that they print in my RTTY
decoder window(s). That is, first one to print goes into the Entry window,
next one goes into top of stack, third one goes next in line in the stack,
etc. More and more tail-enders are getting the timing right and I catch all
of them as well.
2. After the first station sends his exchange, I send the combined TU/next
exchange message:
<call 1> TU, NOW
<call 2> 599 1234 1234
3. If station 2 doesn't respond, I pop the next call out of the stack and
send him an exchange. (If rate is very slow and no one else is in the stack
and I don't think anyone else is waiting, I may repeat the exchange to
station 2.)
I convert around 80% of the stacked calls into QSOs, sometimes even 3-4 deep
in the stack. I'd guess more will stick around if they believe I am
operating efficiently and there is a good chance I will pick them up. I aim
to build a reputation for running the stack well. After all, stack usage
effectively doubles the rate during the time the stack is operating. That's
good for both sides of the pileup. Two of the four QSO phases (the CQ and
the response/pileup) are eliminated as you alternate between your exchange
and his exchange.
The few stations who send their exchange instead in response to my CQ are
handled according to my sense of the situation. First of all, I try to
control my annoyance. Me getting annoyed is my problem, not theirs!
1. If they send their call with their exchange, I simply send my exchange
as always. They often reply by sending their exchange again. Yes, a waste
of time, but hey, I got another station logged! Sometimes they just send TU
and that's fine. It didn't take much more time than a normal sequence and
it keeps me on my toes and awake. If they don't respond at all to my
exchange, I may send it again, but if I don't get a TU or some indication of
QSL, I have to make a judgment call as to whether I log it or not. Most of
these cases are casual non-contesters who may not even submit a log, so I
try to cut them some slack. My view is that at least they are participating
and hopefully with time, if we don't treat them poorly, they will learn the
contest protocol which is good for all of us.
2. If they don't send their call with their exchange, then I send "CALL?".
If they give me their call, then I follow process 1. above. If they don't
give me their call, I call CQ.
For me the goal is to present a consistent example of reasonable contest
protocol no matter how the other station operates. Reinforcing the behavior
we want is better in the long run than being punitive. Think of these
"annoying" cases as contester trainees. Some portion of our contest time is
well spent helping more people get on board with radiosport.
Ed - P49X
Gary, AL9A, wrote:
> I too will stack stations if I'm getting several printing at the same time
> in a pile up. I rarely have more than one or two in the stack. Problem
> is
> when I go to the "next" guy he is often not there. Usually I think it is
> someone running SO2R and he didn't stick around because he had to go back
> to
> his CQ radio. Bill's philosophy of not sticking around if he sees a stack
> situation is different. The problem is not sticking around for your call
> to
> come out of the stack causes me a dilemma. Do I send the exchange a
> second
> time, which loses me time, go the next one in the stack if there is one,
> or
> call CQ again? I don't know if there is a good answer. Usually I will
> send
> the exchange a second time and many times the station will finally
> respond.
> I can only assume some QSB or QRM prevented him from getting my exchange
> on
> the first send or he didn't read/understand the "... NOW XXXXX..." part.
>
> Unless you are a really big gun I think it is unrealistic to think that
> your
> call will always be the one pulled out of the pile up first and then QSY
> when it's not. The most annoying for me though is the guys who send their
> complete exchange without waiting to see if I have acknowledged their
> call.
> I'm sorry, but I can't log "... 599 274 274 TU 73 ES GL". Who the heck
> was
> that? How do I call him back and ask for a repeat of his call? Please,
> if
> you haven't seen me acknowledge your call don't bother to send an exchange
> that is going to end up on the shack floor anyway!
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|