[CQ-Contest] ROTTEN OPERATING

[Frank W8HO]

Hello to all,

Just a brief couple of comments about different habits developing in 
contesting, and in CW contesting particularly.  Though I do not have the 
pleasure of calling KH6IJ a friend, I have certainly adopted this operating 
practice.  I believe, for the same reasons as Jim N8TJ has stated that ur 
call is stated at least twice in the QSO is essential if u want to avoid 
dupes and improve ur contest scores by decreasing penalties.(I make sure 
that the caller states my call correctly, or I state "this is W8HO to 
clarify the contact..." then I state my call to indicate I am ready for the 
next call.)

While this post was triggered to encourage more frequent call sending 
during ur contest exchange, it was also to pose a few questions about "QRQ" 
sending.   Tony brought up the term QRQ.  A term we don't often discuss, 
but quite often have problems establishing.

My questions are: What do u consider appropriate rates for CW sending?  Are 
there different standards for rag chewing and contesting?  Are you sure 
that ur contesting rate is appropriate to get the most bang for ur run-time 
frequency?  Do u listen to those who ask for u to QRS, or simply ignore 
them and continue at ur usual run rate if their request is not sent at very 
close to ur usual send rate, waiting for the faster QSO?

Naturally I do not expect (or even want!) individual answers to these 
questions.  The principle of the question is the important factor.  As we 
all adjust our run freq rates, let's keep in mind that an extra sending of 
your call sign and keeping ur rate at a reasonable pace (16-20 wpm, 
according to my calculations) may very well improve our contest scores 
dramatically.  These are just some thoughts and questions to think over.

We all benefit when we see the contest community grow.  That includes the 
CW, digital, and phone modes.  This means we have a huge pool of new hams 
who suffered their way through the 5 WPM CW test.  If they can't find a QSO 
in a CW contest, they are not going to develop the fever that the rest of 
us have for contesting.

Well that is certainly enough from my point of view.  I hope u will give it 
some thought.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

73 de Frank W8HO ex WB8ZEV


At 08:06 PM 12/29/2001 -0700, you wrote:

>Frankly - one other reason I've discovered over the years for dupes is that
>some
>folks just plain can't copy the code at semi QRQ rates.  I have no idea what
>they put
>in their log but when I have nearly 400 dupes out of 4000 QSO's (5V7A - 20
>meters)
>something is definately wrong.
>
>Tony N7BG
>
>----- 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 12:56 PM
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] ROTTEN OPERATING
>
>
>SNIP===SNIP===SNIP====SNIP
> > My response (long):
> >Jim Neiger
 > N6TJ/ZD8Z

> > 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.
>SNIP===SNIP===SNIP===SNIP


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