That's odd Ed,
For the limited amount of time I was on (roughly 15 hours) I noticed a
marked improvement in stations IDing. Of the three listed below, I VP2MMM
IDed about every 3 to 4 QSOs, or at least was when I was listening. The
others, I didn't hear. Since I run 100 watts to a long wire antenna and
was 100% S & P, I have taken a bit of information that was passed on to me
by K3ZO a few years back...that I am finally getting around to getting into
my head. If there is no ID after 3 QSOs I move on...also, if I call 3
times with no reply, then they aren't hearing me so I move on and come back
to the station later. This big thing, is that I do believe IDing is
getting much better overall.
Folks that don't ID often have always been around (or have been since I
started contesting in the lat 1980s). Whilst I think they should ID more
often, I have learned to live with it. So long as they are following the
ID rules that their version of the FCC requires, I am can deal with that.
I do think that sometimes they do rely on DXclusters and what not to put
their call out correctly. This year I did note some busted calls on the
Cluster and I also fat fingered a couple myself...so listening is that much
more important.
Just my .02 cents for what it is worth (not much in reality).
73,
Jeff
K3OQ
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Edward Sawyer <SawyerEd@earthlink.net>wrote:
> As usual, the frustration of stations not sending calls sets in during
> contests. Is it worse, personally, I don't think so. Its been bad for at
> least 5 years if not more. A few notables were VP2MMM, 9M4SM, 3DA0ET. A
> couple of Chinese went literally 10 minutes as well but I don't recall
> which
> ones from the log and don't want to be wrong. To me its quite simple to
> nip
> this problem in the butt and its time we do it since reactions of "lets
> just
> make everyone assisted so it doesn't matter" are too easy. And that
> doesn't
> hold water since we are all verifying what we hear on the air instead of
> trusting skimmer and packet right? So seriously, should it really matter
> what category your running? What matters is the offending station is not
> operating properly. Fix it directly, not indirectly.
>
>
>
> 2 fixes with immediate results in my opinion:
>
>
>
> Make it a DQ offense to be doing it constantly during a contest. Its all
> recorded and we all hear them. Just DQ em and it stops. Say, not IDing at
> least once a minute on a routine basis is grounds for a DQ. Presto, done.
> Then DQ a couple the next year and its game over for that mess.
>
>
>
> Just require a call be sent in every "exchange" and call the "exchange" the
> 5NN Zone, or the entry or exit of the exchange. So if someone CQ'd with a
> call, no need to repeat, if its at the end as a "QRZ" type end both okay,
> but no CQ and no end and its not okay. And require that BOTH stations are
> accountable for the exchange to be valid. This will slow down the offender
> to a call as the stations being worked will stop and ask for the call
> before
> sending the exchange often and the offender will quickly learn that its
> faster to just send the call.
>
>
>
> Can we do one or the other? And stop using skimmer/packet as the potential
> solution? Exactly how does that solve the problem so nicely on SSB anyway?
> Just solve it at its source and lets be done with it.
>
>
>
> By the way, stations sounded very "clean" this year. Imagine that? Lets
> continue this momentum on signing your call and enforcing it.
>
>
>
> 73 Ed N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
Jeff Embry, K3OQ
FM19nb
ARCI #11643, FPQRP #-696,
QRP-L # 67, NAQCC #25, ARS #1733
AMSAT LM-2263
--
WWWDWOA?
(What Would We Do Without Acronyms?)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|