[CQ-Contest] SO2R is not unsportmanlike

Dave Lawley g4buo at compuserve.com
Sun Jul 23 10:20:40 EDT 2000

Dave K8CC wrote:

>Unless you maintain your presence (to the point that 
>perhaps they believe you're multi-op) your claim to a frequency is gone.

This is fine in theory. I practice, as Bruce points out, most SO2R ops
aren't very good at it. These less-good ops are of two types. The
first type, and I count myself as one, concentrate on getting the mult
and as a result, sometimes lose the run frequency and have to go and
find a new one.  It means that you have to judge how important the
mult is, compared with the importance of maintaining the run. This is
an aspect of SO2R contesting that I know I need to improve, and is
what I am practising.

The second type also lose their run frequency but on the principle of
'might is right' - which I disagree with but which I have seen
asserted on this reflector a number of times - just go back and steal
'their' run frequency from the poor guy who found it and started to
make some QSOs. We can't legislate against this behaviour, all we can
do is hope that peer pressure will work to discourage it.

Dave G4BUO

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list