[CQ-Contest] Re: Dupes?

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

Your sentiment may be well taken from some points of view. But the
fact is that the rules have changed.

Talk all you want about how you think things OUGHT to be, I can
sympathize, but the rules have changed.

The rules have changed, and no one has any contest rules enforcement
reasons not to accept the other party's assertion that he hasn't
worked you. Give him a Q, and move on.

It's real simple. You're in a run. I call you. Your logger says worked
before. You (or your logging program) blows me off with a QSO B4. I go
away, very fast, because I'm not going to spend ANY time arguing with
you, unless you're a rare mult. You lose 4 Q's. I lose no more than I
was already losing, nothing if I blew the call so badly it comes off
as a unique. Additionally, we PROBABLY will call you yet again,
because YOUR CALL SIGN ISN'T IN OUR LOG. Since you won't give me a Q,
I can't get it into my logger's list of calls worked. EVEN if I
remember you and the B4 myself, the next op that sets down at the
chair doesn't know about it. FURTHER, the next time someone spots you,
you will pop up on the bandmap as a ripe one to go and get. It's
HOPELESS. Give me the Q and move on.

If you're a rare mult, you'll loose time UNTIL I get a Q, because I
may not accept your B4 and argue. The rules don't penalize you for
giving me the Q, and I know it, and I'm going to keep at it until you
give me the Q. There's no reason besides orneriness for you not to
give me the Q, since the rules have changed. FURTHER, chances are
50/50 that YOUR log is wrong, not ours, because there are PLENTY of
ways for a running station to screw up the log, and cause trouble for
BOTH parties.

Just consider the plight of  the multiop station NY4A. New call NY3A
made plenty of contacts in the CQWW as well. Since NY4A is fairly well
known, consider station DX4EVR calling CQ. He's actually called by
NY3A, but wrote down NY4A anticipating the rest of the call sign after
the NY.  NY3A doesn't catch the gaffe. Later DX4EVR catches an NY3A
CQ, with that call showing green in the bandmap. After that DX4EVR
calling CQ gets called by NY4A. Should NY3A put DX4EVR in the log,
even though he shows it as a dupe? Should DX4EVR put NY4A in the log
even though he shows it as a dupe?

Or consider the high bands where DX4EVR and DX0Q are within several
hundred Hz but can't hear each other because of skip. AB0WXYZ actually
works DX4EVR, but DX0Q puts him in the log because the exchange timed
exactly with his CQ and response. After about 30 seconds AB0WXYZ calls
DX0Q. Should DX0Q send B4 and blow him off because the mindless wretch
can't even remember a QSO for 30 seconds, or give him the Q?

Every one of those situations contains questionable aspects. EVERY
dupe has a QUESTIONABLE ASPECT. EVERY dupe is PREVENTABLE AT SOME
POINT. But did the mis-log occur because everyone was so tired they
could barely keep their procedures straight? Or did the op at DX4EVR
miscopy the correction attempt by NY3A because one of the other ops
slipped and spilled a glassful of ice and coke down his back as he was
trying to copy? Or was DX4EVR operated by sullen, low-life,
despicable, careless, miserable, smelly, drooling, unshaven, lurching
slobs who don't deserve the benefit of the doubt even if they could
pay a million Euros for it? Do you know anyone in a position to make
that distinction from a distance?

Dupes are STILL a net WASTE OF TIME, which will keep any intelligent
operator trying hard to minimize their own contribution to the
creation of dupes. But isn't it nice that the rules change allows us
to forgo making a moral judgment on the worth and motives of the other
operator, minimize the waste of time, and save some points, AND GIVE
HIM THE Q?

That's how the rules play now.

73, Guy.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Erik Holm" <sm2ekm at telia.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: Dupes?



UA9CIR is absolutley right, let´s deal with the problem why people
do work dupes.
If we just don´t care at all  and just  work whatever calls us no
matter
how many times we don´t do anything about the original problem instead
we just bypass it.
Forexample, usually the logging program will pop up the first QSO and
with that info you can pritty quick check with the guy if he can find
you
at that specific time. Sure it might take 2 seconds longer then just
working
him but maybe it might learn a few to be more careful in the future.
Usually
they will find the previous QSO, just a few will not find anything and
then
you simply just work him.

73, Jim SM2EKM


----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

Guy Olinger, K2AV wrote:

>It takes a particular state of mind to extend
>
>   "Something should be allowed"
>
>to
>
>  " Something will be done over and over and over and over...."
>
>The truth is that NOBODY that I know just wants to work the same guy
>over and over on the same band just because dupes are now allowed. In
>the CQWW at NY4A, there was one fellow, known to every op at NY4A,
who
>was the ONLY, I repeat ONLY multi-dupe in the log. He appeared not to
>understand "QSO B4" or the equivalent in the language that went with
>his call sign.
>
>My logging program tells me if I have someone already in the log. I
>DON'T want to work him again. He's a DUPE. It's wasted time.
>
>When I do call someone and I'm in as a dupe in his log, there is a
>DIFFERENCE OF OPINION as to whether I'm a dupe. What the procedure is
>now, is that you should complete the contact in favor of the fellow
>that says the QSO is not in the log. That's COURTESY, not EXCESS.
>
>THE RULES HAVE CHANGED. DEAL WITH IT.
>
>73, Guy.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike UA9CIR" <lab3 at ekb.ru>
>To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 4:01 AM
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dupes?
>
>
>
>Good morning,
>
>K2AV wrote:
>
>>I am afraid it will be a LONG time before hamdom finally realizes
>>
>that
>
>>they are now supposed to work dupes and leave them in the log.
>>
>
>I hope this will never happen.
>>From the recent postings, we (especially the younger ops) learned
>that
>working dupes is not a bad thing at all.
>We learned that working all dupes is a good thing because if you
don't
>work him it may cost you triple penalty.
>Never say "QSO B4" - just work him, otherwise it will cost you a lot
>if
>he does not call you any more.
>Nothing wrong in calling CQ on top of someone else, some of the
>callers
>will not put you in the log, no problem - you'll work them again
>later.
>Because if u don't - it may cost you 4 QSO.
>If you hear a multiop station, call them as many times as you can -
>their enjoyment is not complete if you don't work each operator.
>
>etc. etc, a lot has been said how to work dupes, but very little how
>NOT to make them. This is strange because one good QSO takes less
time
>than two QSOs (one good and one bad). And no penalty involved.
>Besides, the contest goal is to QSO as many different stations as
>possible, not to QSO the same stations as many times as possible.
>
>If we lower operating standards we may get more inexperienced ops
>which will result in more dissatisfied ops leaving the hobby and in
>lower totals and degradation in the long run.
>
>73 Mike UA9CIR
>
>


--
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