Hi Ed,
The 2006 running of CQ WW CW was my first; I made a few zero-point QSOs
because I'm still chasing WAS. For each zero-point QSO I waited until the
other op had a couple CQs go unanswered, so I don't think that I cost
anybody any points. I am happy to say that the other ops all logged me,
and replied to my QSL card and SASE. (To those of you who worked me in
the contest for zero points: thank you!)
I fail to see why the big guns on this reflector debate the reasons why
there are so many zero-point QSOs in CQ WW. The serious contesters need
the casual contesters, or else contests wouldn't be any fun. If serious
contesters were to treat casual contesters as a nuisance for making
zero-point QSOs or requesting QSL cards, then casual contesters might not
come out and play any more.
Shouldn't all contesters treat things like zero-point QSOs as part of the
cost of doing business, whatever the other parties' motivations, so as to
not make casual contesters feel not wanted?
73,
- Rob W7GH
(Casual Contester)
P.S. For what it's worth, I'm not buying the theory either that
zero-point QSOs in CQ WW mainly come from people who don't know the rules
and just want to help out. If somebody spent the time to figure out what
the exchange is, then surely he spent another couple minutes reading up on
the general idea of the contest. Surely he knew roughly what was going
on, and wanted something from the QSO for his own reasons, whatever they
were. Of course, my opinion and $4 will get you a cup of coffee at
Starbucks...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:27:27 -0700, Ed Sawyer <sawyered@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> I personally do not buy the "most guys think they are just helping out"
> argument. Why? The same guys would be "helping out" in ARRL DX but the
> fraction of zero pointers there is way way less. Since the "helper
> outers"
> don't know the rules in either of the contests...they should be just as
> helpful in both. No...the vast vast majority of the zero point Qs in CQ
> WW
> are people chasing the mult (like me). Eliminate the need...and the
> problem
> is basically gone.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|