[CQ-Contest] unIDs

Sun Dec 4 01:54:52 PST 2011

Hi Yuri

> >In any case, IMHO work the station, and then for whatever reason not to 
> >LOG
> > it, is a cowardly wrong thing to do. I would never do that and will not 
> > recommend it to anybody else.

With all respect, if a rare station decision not to ID should be considered 
brave/reasonable/strategic, the other station, who works for his own score, 
should also be fully respected when deciding when he can not spend more time 
waiting to complete a QSO, which by the DX station is self-interpreted as 
complete. The fact is that only DX station indeed received a full call 
sign - the other station did not have an opportunity to hear it at the time 
(half) QSO took place because DX station assumes it is reasonable that 
others wait.

I've, like many others, noticed increased no-ID practice last weekend while 
operating as T70A. I think more and more operators consider this nowadays as 
a personnal rule. Not having at my disposal big antennas, with the 
cluster/skimer generated pile ups it is difficult to get any attention of 
the needed multiplier unless you are loud and I fully understand the 
frustration. The fun should be two ways and QSO points for a good QSO are a 
reward to both stations.

To ID every second or third QSO in a large pile up may seem reasonable, but 
not to ID should not be a RULE: if I miss DX callsign, when DX, at his own 
pattern IDs, (high speed, QRM etc) I need to wait another 2-3  or in your 
case 4-5 QSOs and hope there will be no QRM when you ID again. By not 
knowing who is maximzing score behind 5NN 8, the risk is also that I may be 
spending MY VALUABLE time on a possible dupe QSO.

If a DX station wants to increase score by saving time and not sending the 
callsign often enough, I do not understand why would one on the other end be 
"coward" if he can not get that callsing in reasonable time. We are sharing 
the same time and yours can not be more valuable than mine - if you decide 
to send a call sign every 4-5 QSOs, I should also have right to decide how 
many Qs will be my "patience" time.

IMHO, a good practice is MUTUAL RESPECT when running a pile up. This does 
not necessarily mean ID every QSO but  is more occassional non-ID, rather 
than ID only at the pre-set  time intervals/x number of QSOs.

>From my experience, the beauty of a pile up is when I feel fully 
sinchronized with the "crowd" - when they understand the pattern I use and 
start using the same style (complete QSO as quickly as possible - cooperate 
with me). This requires continuing adjustment of the operating style: QRS if 
asked to do so, QRS your ID occassionaly when running a large pile up, ID on 
intervals that make sense for that particular moment but more importantly 
FULL RESPECT. The crowd will understand occassional TU means I've got two 
more in the line, they will understand T70A immediatelly after they gave me 
a report also means TU, or regular TU T70A when it is likely there was 
nobody waiting for a QSO. In this case TU will indicate to the one who tunes 
the band I've just completed a QSO.

Likewise, 599 15, ENN 15, ENN A5, ENN AE are all within the rules, mean the 
same, and in case "one DXCC one Zone" should be looked as "time savers" for 
both DX and station worked.. Time saving by ID every x QSOs is only one way 
and in some cases unfair.

Without participation of all smalll pistols we would have little to enjoy 
therefore their time must be fully respected.

73 Ivo I7/9A3A  T70A in CQ WW CW

E73A, ex 5B4ADA/C4A

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yuri" <ve3dz at rigexpert.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] unIDs

> Ed,
> the "problem" of the DX station is to deliver his call.
> The "problem" of you, as a caller, is to get his call.
>
> Some guys only need the call to be sent once to copy it right. For some 
> guys
> even 3 times are not enough.
> So, what would be the way to please everybody?
>
> If you did not get the call of the DX station, there are few options for
> you:
>
> a) to wait on the frequency until the DX IDs next time;
> b) If you don't want to go with a), just move on and don't work the guy;
> c) brutally send "?" or "CALL?" until the station IDs for you.
>
> As a guy constantly being "on the other side" of the pile-up, I may assure
> you that the above scenario works for 99.9 % of the callers. I don't 
> really
> understand why are you making such a big deal out of it.
>
> In any case, IMHO work the station, and then for whatever reason not to 
> LOG
> it, is a cowardly wrong thing to do.
> I would never do that and will not recommend it to anybody else.
>
> Until it is clearly specified in the Rules, you can't force the DX guy to
> send his call after EACH QSO, especially when he is having a 100+ stations
> pile-up.
>
> 73  Yuri  VE3DZ
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Edward Sawyer" <SawyerEd at earthlink.net>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] unIDs
>
>
>> Yuri, No that is not what I am saying.  I am saying that the offender has
>> not delivered on his obligation of the valid Q by not signing.  And
>> therefore while the Q is "loggable" it ultimately fails to be logged
>> because
>> the callsign is not there.  The fact that he thinks its done is his
>> problem,
>> not my problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Competitive contesters will learn from climbing UBNs and modify their
>> behavior.  Heck, these guys probably already have bad UBNs because ops 
>> are
>> logging packet spots which are bad enough that they won't show up in the
>> expected log in many cases.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed  N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 