[CQ-Contest] Contest QSOs: To QSL or not to QSL

[John T. Laney, III]

I am, for everyone I answer QSLs for (K4BAI, W4AN, K4AAA, KM9P, 8P9Z,
8P9HT, 8P9HR, etc.) still responding to all QSLs received, whether or
not they check PSE.  I think most guys want a return card and it makes
very little difference in the bureau expense to print a label and
include it in the box.  I agree that people should not request QSLs for
bands/modes that they already have confirmed, but many still do this.
Maybe they are too busy or lazy.  Sometimes, I even get QSLs for both
QSOs when someone has made a duplicate QSO in a contest.  I answer those
too, but I think everyone would be justified in not sending a reply for
the duplicate QSO in those circumstances.  I assume the sender sent a
QSL for both QSOs, thinking that one of them might be bad and hoping for
only one reply per band/mode at least for the same contest.

We never know if the requester is working on some award with a new start
date that would require a new QSL that would seem to be a duplicate to
us.  Also, after one has been doing this for many years, sometimes QSLs
are sent just in order to have a card from the same op 45 or 50 years
later.

I never want anyone to be unhappy with me or anyone I answer cards for
because cards weren't answered.

I get pleasure out of answering QSLs and don't have any threshold
requirements for a QSL except that one be sent to me by some method.

73,

John, K4BAI.


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


>From Ward Silver <hwardsil at WOLFENET.com>  Mon Jul 30 03:17:20 2001
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil at WOLFENET.com> (Ward Silver)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] SO2R, and a word from Honest Abe
In-Reply-To: <001b01c1188d$6026dea0$af1afea9 at ranchonodinero>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1010729190324.3071G-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>


> Your comments provide an answer to my questions about the advantage-clearly
> there is one.  But what the heck, if I'm not willing to pony up the bucks
> then I OUGHT to be given a disadvantage, in fact, I should be discouraged
> from competing...
> 
> Marty

Well, let's get the needle off the peg, here...

There are ALWAYS going to be top operators with better locations, more
money, bigger towers, the latest gear, more time to innovate, and more
(fill in the blank).  That's a fact, just given statistics.  Nobody is
suggesting that if you can't be Serious, then don't compete - that's
ridiculous.

What's really needed, I think, as opposed to more categories, is more
recognition of exceptional efforts from all parts of the spectrum of
entrants.  If we have the technology to detect and DQ packet cheaters,
then I think it's also a good possibility that we could look through the
results and compare them against previous contests to find operators that
have done something noteworthy.  Too many labor for years in the trenches
without mention of any sort.

After all, the Big Guns already know pretty much who's who within a few
days of the contest.  There would be a lot more interest in reading the
results if there was some variation from 'the usual suspects'.  Lately,
the writeups seem to be pushing in this direction.  Web pages could hold a
lot more information and human interest aspects at considerably lower
cost.

73, Ward N0AX


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


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Mon Jul 30 03:17:32 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:17:32 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] SO2R vs SO1R
References: <PFECKKOPNKDAIKEBBMOLMELOCCAA.dick.green at valley.net>
Message-ID: <0cfc01c1189d$cc03d5a0$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


Dick, what's going on here is that Bill has overstated some things
that have some truth -- SO2R enables you to ignore your existing band
strategy in favor of reacting more readily to unexpected propagation
shifts and change modes between CQing and S&P without the usual lost
time.  That is its strength, and it can also enable an operator who is
less experienced to both learn the techniques of contesting more
quickly and overcome his inexperience.  This, of course, doesn't mean
that SO2R techniques can be utilized optimally without learning
additional skills.

Now, if someone is on a headstrong campaign to change the world then
he can take almost anything that is positive and invent words that
make it sound terrible.  And nearly every terrible thing can be
described in glowing terms.  I'd like to make sure that almost every
inexperienced contester takes note of what Bill is really saying here:
despite the steep learning curve SO2R presents, it helps an operator
to overcome inexperience with propagation.

Bill is on a rampage against SO2R, and judging by the responses on the
reflector nearly everyone is in disagreement with him and finding his
tenacity tiring.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Green" <dick.green at valley.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R vs SO1R


>
> W7TI wrote:
>
> > What makes you think I haven't?  I have done about six or seven
contests
> > SO2R.  That's how I know whereof I speak.
>
> Then I'm very surprised that you made these comments:
>
> >If all a person wants to do is maximize their score, then SO2R is
the
> >way to go. Think of all you don't have to worry about:
> >
> > 1.  No band strategy. You're monitoring all of them all the time.
> > 2.  No knowledge of propagation. When a band opens, you're there.
> > 3.  No decision whether to CQ or S&P. You are doing both.
> > 4.  No real radio smarts required. Only manual dexterity.
>
> Let's look at the claims:
>
> 1. No band strategy. I spend several hours before each contest
studying
> recent rate sheets of top stations and working out my band strategy.
Not
> only do I have to work out a plan for the run radio, I have to work
one out
> for the S&P radio. Of course, the plans get modified during the
contest.
> Sometimes it's because I've found a band opening with the second
radio, but
> more often it's after CQing for a few minutes and deciding one band
isn't as
> good as another. The second radio does not allow me to monitor all
bands at
> the same time. If I want to check another band, I have to stop
S&Ping and
> QSY, effectively slowing the S&P rate. Yes, I don't have to stop the
CQ, but
> the QSY and check are distracting and lower the rate on both radios.
>
> 2. No knowledge of propagation. The SO2R ops that win certainly know
a lot
> about propagation. For example, K5ZD recently told me that he's just
getting
> a real handle on East Coast propagation. For example, he knows that
when 20M
> sounds a certain way, 15M and 40M will have certain characteristics,
or that
> there are certain times when we can hear EU but they can't hear us
very
> well. None of this has anything to do with SO2R. The second radio
does not
> allow you to be there instantly when a band opens because usually
you are
> pounding it for QSOs and mults on another band and don't have time
to
> constantly check other bands.
>
> 3. No decision whether to CQ or S&P. While one of the goals of SO2R
is to be
> CQing all the time, it's not always possible. Sometimes it's more
efficient
> to stop CQing and focus all of your attention on the S&P radio. When
40M
> opened in IARU, I S&Ped about 15 HQ stations and 10 zones in less
than ten
> minutes, but I had to stop my high CQ rate on 20M in order to do
that. I
> lost my 20M frequency in the process. K5ZD says that chasing mults
on the
> low bands always costs him rate on the run radio. On 160M, I usually
have to
> stop CQing and focus on one radio to hear through the static.
>
> 4. No real radio smarts required. You could have fooled me. I'm
constantly
> making decisions about propagation, how to optimize reception, where
to turn
> the beams, etc. In addition, I have to think about two radios, two
bands and
> a host of antenna alternatives. That's why it's so hard to do. The
important
> skill isn't manual dexterity -- it's being able to concentrate on
multiple
> events at the same time when you're dog tired. Call it multi-tasking
under
> extreme pressure.
>
> There is some truth to the claim that the second radio helps you
find band
> openings, but it's not as big an advantage as one might think. If
the rate
> is moderate-to-low, an SO1R op can quickly check another band on the
second
> VFO. That's hard to do when the rate is high, but if the rate is
high why do
> you need to QSY? You can check a band without switching VFOs if you
have a
> second receiver. Is that SO1R or SO2R? Even better, you can use
FT-1000D
> with a sub receiver that has its own bandpass filters -- i.e., you
can CQ
> while you listen to another band. You can also instantly switch to
the sub
> receiver and transmit. Is that SO1R or SO2R?
>
> I do believe that SO2R offers a distinct advantage over SO1R, but
only if
> you can master it -- which isn't easy. Further, I  believe that you
have to
> master SO2R in order to have a shot at winning these days. But you
also need
> to be an incredibly talented operator and you need a highly
effective set of
> antennas, too. No matter how hard I try, and no matter how good I
get at
> SO2R, conventional wisdom says that my two low tribanders, 40M
4-square and
> low 80/160 wires are not going to beat a top operator with tall
towers,
> stacks on the high bands, a 40M beam, an 80M 4-square, a full-size
160M
> vertical, beverages in every direction and a 360-degree unobstructed
hilltop
> location. Should there be a separate category for me ("Wimpy
Antennas, but
> Better than Tribander Single"?) Maybe I would win a plaque, but it
wouldn't
> mean much to me -- my object is refine my skill and equipment (and
maybe an
> antenna or two) enough to rank with the top operators with the heavy
> hardware -- or occasionally beat them when everything goes right for
me and
> wrong for them.
>
> There's just no way that station differences can be fairly used to
determine
> categories. I use two autotune amps and never have to spend time
retuning
> for another band. Should there be sepatate categories for manual and
> autotune amps? There are simply too many ways that an operator can
add
> something here or there: another 30 feet of tower, longer booms, a
low beam
> fixed NE, another beverage, a better receiver, sharper filters, a
DSP
> processor, etc. More often than not, it requires developing new
skills to
> take advantage of the upgrade, just like it does to take advantage
of SO2R.
>
> To me, the borderline case is high power versus low power.
Technically,
> these shouldn't be separate categories, just as we don't have
separate
> categories for people with 100-foot towers and people with 50-foot
towers.
> In fact, one could make a case that big differences in antennas are
much
> more important, because they help on receive as well as transmit.
But
> there's certainly a palpable difference in operating with and
without an amp
> in terms of one's ability to hold a frequency. I used to be able to
hold a
> frequency (barely) in CQWW with a multiband vertical and a 1500W
amp, but
> couldn't do it barefoot with a low tribander. The same argument
applies to
> QRP versus low power -- there's a really big difference.
>
> But in all other respects, I think the correct way to establish
categories
> is by considering the number of people involved: one op, two ops,
many ops.
> Since the brain and body are far and away the most important factors
in
> contesting, and the purest  basis on which to compare performance,
we should
> keep the categories as they are. As long as there is one op, the
category
> should be the same whether the station has one radio, two radio or t
en
> radios. The important concept is that all activity threads through
one brain
> and one set of hands (and feet if you use a footswitch.)
>
> K0IL asked why we don't allow CQing on more than one band. Until he
raised
> this point, I took it for granted that the rule restricting single
ops to
> one transmitted signal at a time was a good idea. It certainly has
caused me
> to develop certain skills and to harangue the developer of my
contest
> program to add features that allow smooth, legal switching from one
radio to
> the other. As it stands now, several log programs forbid
transmission on
> both radios at the same time and allow fairly rapid automated
alternation of
> transmission. But do we need the restriction in the first place?
After all,
> if the purest definition is that all activity threads through one
mind and
> body, it doesn't matter how many signals are present on the air at
the same
> time. Besides, it's very difficult to enforce the rule. I don't see
a whole
> lot of harm in allowing one CQ and one S&P signal to be present at
the same
> time -- it still takes an enormous amount of skill to manage that
situation.
> But I'm much less comfortable with allowing two simultaneous CQ
signals,
> because the rate could go through the roof to the point where SO1R
ops would
> have no chance at all. Further, single ops would consume twice as
much
> frequency spectrum, which would be horrible in big contests. It
might be fun
> to find out just how high a single op can push the rate, but beyond
that I
> think it would be detrimental to contesting. Although it would take
a lot of
> skill to manage more than two simultaneous CQs (it's very hard to
mix the
> audio in such a way that you would know where a response was coming
from),
> there are those who would try and they might succeed. If a lot of
single ops
> had six radios calling CQ at the same time, it would be as if every
entrant
> was a multi and what little real estate is left for single ops would
be
> gone. This would surely destroy the fun of contesting. I suppose we
could
> have a rule that says it's OK to have one CQ and multiple S&P
signals at the
> same time, but not multiple simultaneous CQs. But this gets awfully
specific
> and could be difficult to enforce.
>
> So, once again, the categories and rules are pretty good as they
stand.
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
>
> --
> 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