[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Your Call?

To: Drew Vonada-Smith <drew@whisperingwoods.org>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Your Call?
From: Steve Lott <lottsphoto@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:31:30 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

I agree 100%

One way to "fix" this is Not Log the station even after you worked them
and make notes to the sponsor as why select stations might be shown as a
Nil in your log

It would take time but if more than a few ops did this
they would get enough Nils that affect their scores
and then they might learn the lesson !


My Ham Radio Friends

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Drew Vonada-Smith <drew@whisperingwoods.org
> wrote:

> All,
> Key clicks and GJ0KE were indeed annoying this contest.  But what drove me
> nuts, and I am surprised not to be reading it from others yet, was the "No
> ID while running" situation.  ***It has gotten much worse***.  The practice
> seems to be most evident in SA and the Caribbean.
> I heard *many* stations not IDing for a dozen QSOs.  I heard one not ID
> for over 15 minutes - I felt compelled to stay there and measure it.  This
> destroys the rate of people doing unassisted S&P.  Many good contesters in
> the Caribbean make great rates and ID every or nearly every QSO.  So this
> practice is a way to improve your rate by a tiny fraction at the cost of a
> HUGE impact on others. This is not within the spirit or rules of any
> contest.  It is poor sportsmanship at best.
> To make it worse, a few stations (and I will name names from my notes if
> asked) refused a fill even when working a station asking "Call?"  And I
> heard one pointedly answered "NO" when a dozen in the pileup repeatedly
> asked for "CALL?"  This isn't just bad practice, it is spitting in the face
> of others who operate skillfully.
> I've actually had contesters tell me proudly how efficient they were
> because after each QSO in a big run, they skip the TU and their call and
> just send a dit.  We need to change this mindset.
> Perhaps no rule changes are needed.  But I call upon all of you to join in
> publicly noting that this isn't acceptable.  And I call upon sponsors to
> get tough on abusers.  If no reasonable attitude is forthcoming, the
> solution is to require a callsign every QSO.  That may be seen by some as
> "extreme", but IMHO, this is best practice in any case.
> 73, Drew K3PA
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

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