Guy Olinger, K2AV k2av at contesting.com
Sat Dec 29 19:55:25 EST 2001


I hope that we all know, flawed operating notwithstanding, given the
inevitability of some level of  duplicate contacts, IF you are using a
logging computer:

1) Dups in usual quantities don't count against us anymore. (Any one not
convinced of this please contact whomever authoritative you can trust in the
contest scoring crowd, and get it cleared up. You are not up with some
important changes.)

2) It's arguably faster to give the contact than to stop and hassle (or
re-QSO) with the 1 in X who DOESN'T have you in the log for whatever reason,
after sending SRI B4 (no faster to send than 5NN14). A haggle always screws
up the pileup rhythm. Whereas the dupe always uses up a contact space,
minimum, no matter what tack you take on them. If you're a new mult, you
WILL get a haggle. Possibility of this kind of haggle increases
exponentially if you're a rare mult. If I'm working you, especially when I
get tired, I'm convinced I'm right and I haven't worked you.  (Only get
guilty AFTER the test when I discover I "worked" ZZ8Z.)

3) Dups are NOT removed in the Cabrillo format, they should be left in. The
scoring program deals with them.

4) In the case that the first time calls (both) were mangled, the second
contact (that looks like a dupe to you) is the one that will give you points
and help offset the first one which is a bad QSO. (This dupe was at least
partly your fault.)

5) In the case that you worked the dupe on timing the first contact, and he
was really working the guy up 500 Hz ... as in 4) the dupe becomes a scored
contact and is offset points for the first contact, which you thought was
good and gets scored as NIL. (This dupe was your fault.)

6) Your logging program accounts for what it thinks are dupes and the
running score (Upper left corner in TR) is unaffected by them.

73, Guy.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Neiger" <n6tj at sbcglobal.net>
To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>; "Bill Coleman" <aa4lr at arrl.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] ROTTEN OPERATING

> > >
> > I wonder if the complaints about all the duplicate contacts come from
> > operators who give their call every 10 minutes or so (whether they need
> > to or not <grin>).
> >
> My response (long):
> THIS complaint about duplicate contacts is coming from an operator who has
> EARNED the reputation of signing his call TOO OFTEN.  Perhaps rightfully
> earned, as sometimes I  resort to signing after every QSO.  I've tried to
> emulate my friend and hero KH6IJ is this regard:
> When done in a predictable sense, it tells the worked station, and pileup,
> three things:
>           (1) I QSL your transmission of my
>                 report and your call sign,
>            (2) It tells the pileup WHO I am,
>            (3) It tells the pileup I'm NOW
>                  READY for the next callers.
> It's amazing how effective  this can be, and with a short, fast call (like
> ZD8Z) I've been able to sustain CW rates of 230 - 250/hour.  I wouldn't
> necessarily recommend it, for obvious reasons, if your call is, for
> instance, C56/DL0XXX.
> And now back to the point:  WHY are guys duping me?
>   Simply stated, and to paraphrase KH6IJ, it emanates, predominantly from
> Too many stations are relying STRICTLY on packet for identification of the
> station running the pileup.  And it's amazing (and scary) how these packet
> spots are propagating BUSTED CALLS.  I perceive that there must be some
> hidden glory to being the first in your neighborhood  to spot a station on
> packet, whether you've  copied the call correctly, or not.  And, by
> examination of my UBN reports, and even though my computer  accurately
> ZD8Z everytime, and with perhaps a half million ZD8Z QSO's under my belt
> since 1968 (i.e., it should not be exactly an "unknown call"),  guys are
> working me as ZD7Z, ZD9Z (dream-on), ZD8ZZ, 2D8Z, ZZ8Z,  etc.  Now, if
> earlier, or later, work me as ZD8Z, they think they have at least another
> QSO (and maybe a new multiplier).  What do I have?  A DUPE!
> Some operators JUST DON'T CARE and are inherently sloppy.  During the
> pileups from Brazil in WW SSB and Ascension in WW CW, when plagued by a
> sudden spurt of dupes (thinking perhaps I was a victim of R.O. NO. 1,
> above), I took the time to stop the pileup, and asked the offending
> "just whom do you think you're calling?"  (that's allot of fun on CW), or
> "what do you think my call is?", and it was absolutely amazing to me HOW
> MANY guys (at least honestly), confessed that they had NO IDEA who I was.
> Wonderful!  Result: DUPE for both of us.
> Although not exactly pertinent to the subject at hand, but certainly
> to the IMPATIENCE of operators today, (besides, I'm on a roll here), one
> the scourges of CW contesting is those who plop their big, er, posteriors
> right on top of a station I'm trying to copy, and send a "?".  Really
> helpful to all, guys.  May I respectfully suggest you QRX a second, LISTEN
> (remember when we used to do that?), and then you actually might learn
> what's going on, on the frequency, before you impress us all with your
> obvious skills?
> Last month, a major improvement ( a 95% European phenomenon) in stations
> ASKING WHAT MY QSL ROUTE IS, during a contest.  Either they all now have
> Ascension Island confirmed, or, they're starting to "get it". A definitely
> positive sign, in either regard.
> Now if we can just throw a rope around R.O.'s 1 -3, we can make real
> progress in the reduction of dupes and the enjoyment of contesting.
> Thank you for reading this far, or, ..........
> Vy 73, and Happy Contesting in 2002,
> Jim Neiger
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

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