Dick Kriss wrote:
> I just setup the fldigi-3.11.6 macros for the NAQP-RTTY
> contest this weekend and recalled some recent discussions
> about the use of a dash in a two part Exchange to compensate
> for stations that do not have UnShift on Space set correct.
>
> The way I currently have it setup is my S&P response will be
>
> QSL DICK TX AA5VU TU
Including both "QSL" and TU" is a bit redundant. I'd go with:
TU DICK TX AA5VU
You could include the call of the running station at the start, so he
knows you're really calling him and not someone else running on or
close to his frequency, if you want.
> and for runs it will be
>
> <HisCall> Dick TX <HisCall>
>
> If ask to repeat. I may send
>
> DICK TX DICK-TX
The unshift-on-space thing should be moot for this contest, since there
are no numbers (and hence no shifting) in the exchange. The dash is
likely to create errors, if anything, in this case. I say leave it out.
> What are others planning to use?
>
> Soapbox: Hopefully, the stations calling CQ will use call signs
> for reports. It may save the CQ station some time but really
> confuses the S&P stations when the CQ send a report without
> a call sign.
> It's like saying I will QSL the first and loudest station responding
> with a QSL. Several stations have been using this practice and
> it just causes QRM due to requests for repeats. I may be alone
> but I consider this as a rude operating practice.
Not sure what you mean by that. The running station must send the
callsign of the calling station as part of the exchange - otherwise
how would the "pile-up" know who was chosen??? Someone running and
not sending callsigns in the exchange is not likely to be very
successful in the contest.
It's good practice to send the other station's call at the start
of the exchange and again at the end (as you have above), in case the
start got covered up by the pile-up.
GL!
~Iain / N6ML
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|