[CQ-Contest] Apr wpx and busted q

[Ivo Pezer, 5B4ADA&9A3A]

I've not been following up on this subject (too many comments), but want to
make comment from other than contest perspective.
Whenever casually DX-ing I realize that for some reason  (some) people get my
call sign as 5B4AD (on SSB!!) although I always sign full call sign, 5B4ADA.
Some of them make comments that they have been listening for a while, that I'm
loud etc... and still don't get my complete call sign. I guess they write it
down as 5B4AD and just don't pay attention any longer. Are we (ever) going to
be able to guarantee 2 way contest QSO unless both stations have to send
other's call sign as a part of the exchange (and there will still be people who
will not get it correct!).
Whenever I'm not sure of a call sign I ask them to repeat, and other station
should do the same whenever they are not sure of my call sign. I am always
willing to repeat it and slow down if necessary, send my QSL info etc.
I am responsible for the call signs in my log, but I can't guarantee that other
station received my call sign correctly (even when DX-ing).
And yes, I do not copy all of them correctly when contesting, for whatever
reason, although I'm doing my best and consider myself quite accurate...but not
perfect yet.

I only hope that, if 2 way QSO is required, it should apply to all participants
and there will be no score deductions for an error in one log for some people, 
but for all.
If K1AR logged me (c4a) as K4A and I get penalized for his error (sorry John),
and K1AR gets c4w as K4W and C4W doesn't get penalized for John's error (sorry
once again John) than I won't consider it as a fair score computing. As long as
it applies to ALL participants, it will be THE RULE.

73 Ivo 5B4ADA (not 5B4AD) & C4A     (not K4A) when contesting

PS. K1AR was my first contest QSO years ago. And yes, I received his card so
nobody got penalized for that QSO.

"Guy Olinger, K2AV" wrote:

> On Thu, 6 May 99 13:29:45 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >
> >>Currently there is nothing that rewards for both directions being
> >>correct. If I shortchange the other guy while I'm running and he can't
> >>get back to me for corrections, I loose nothing. I identify
> >>infrequently and cause call sign problems at the other end, I don't
> >>get penalized, he does. If I get the bonus only when BOTH he and I are
> >>correct BOTH ways, maybe I take some interest in practices that also
> >>improve the other guy's chances.
> >
> >This is crap!  If you get my info right and I don't get yours because I
> >am not sure for some reason, NEITHER of us should get any points.  The
> >purpose of the contest is not to get incredible runs, but to make QSOs (A
> >QSO is a confirmed 2 way contact).  Sure, runs are good for egos and I
> >think that's why some people are pissed for getting penalized.  But if
> >you identify infrequenctly and cause problems at the other end you SHOULD
> >NOT get points while screwing others.  Listen to your language, "If I
> >short change the other guy....I loose nothing."  What kind of crap is
> >that?
>
> Having a bad day?
>
> If you read closely you will see that I offer the thought as a
> malintent for consideration, something that is permitted under the
> current rules, and propose a solution for it, I DON'T recommend the
> malintent. This is a common language device for turning over ideas in
> written, spoken communications.
>
> Take a nap and read it again. You're grousing at the fellow that
> agrees with you.
>
> >It's sad that I've learned some many contesters are only interested in
> >their scores.  Before signing on to this reflector and reading all this
> >stuff I used to pride myself in the fact that Ham Radio contesting is the
> >only competition I know of in the world where in order to score points
> >you have to help someone else score points as well; the guy who helps the
> >most other people wins.  Now I am not so sure.  All that it seems like
> >people want are high run rates and points for themselves.  Who cares
> >about the other guy unless I get extra points for helping him?
> >
> >Makes me sick.  Perhaps I'll just leave this reflector and pretend about
> >contesting like I used to.  I am embarassed to say I am in the same hobby.
> >
> >No 73 this time,
>
> I've never had a ham shoot at me, or try to set my house on fire. If I
> get on a repeater with an emergency, I've always been helped. I have
> found the ham contesting community to be cordial and a lot of fun,
> though we ALWAYS disagree on some stuff. Only a tiny handful over the
> years would I NOT want as a neighbor, or trust my kids with.
>
> Whether you like it or not, I insist on treating you as a human being
> with inate dignity, someone whose time and space upon the planet
> counts for something, and whose posts to a listserve deserve reading
> and consideration, even if I disagree.
>
> Many people have died to give us a country with the privilege of
> open, cordial disagreement. I refuse to show disrespect for their
> sacrifice.
>
> THEREFORE,
>
> 73, and I hope tomorrow is better. See you on in the contests.
>
> Guy.
>
> >
> >Jon
> >KE9NA
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The Second Amendment is NOT about duck hunting!
> >
> >
> >Jon Ogden
> >
> >jono at enteract.com
> >www.qsl.net/ke9na
> >
> >"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
>
> 73, Guy
> --. .-..
>
> Guy Olinger, K2AV
> k2av at qsl.net
> Apex, NC, USA
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com