[CQ-Contest] unID et.

[Ken McCormack]

>On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Edward Sawyer <SawyerEd at earthlink.net>wrote:
The reason I believe it is acceptable to work them and not log them is
because if you run out of patience in waiting for them to sign, then you
honestly don't know what to log.  I believe its no different than the
exchange attempt as follows:

Me:  N1UR
You;  N1UR? 599 15
Me:  599 5
You: N1UR? CFM?
Me: N1UR

You (not hearing me):  NIL

In this instance example:
DX:  dit dit
Me: N1UR
DX  N1UR 599 33
Me: 599 5 CL?
DX:  dit dit
Me CL?

DX works 4 more stations without signing

Me: NIL

Tell me what's wrong with that.

Ed>

Hi Ed,

I'm with you 100% except that I persist until he sends his call.

Example.

Me:   ZL1AIH
Him:   ZL1AIH? 59915
Me:   599 32
Him:  ZL1AIH CFM?
Me:   ZL1AIH 599 32
Him:   TU
Me:   ZL1AIH 599 32
Him:   TU
Me:   ZL1AIH 599 32

until he finally gives his call or else I delete the QSO.

In a contest it is my firm belief that unless *both stations
identify*during a QSO, then that QSO is
*invalid.

*I can understand DXpeditioners using 'split'  to maximise their rate
(green stamps?) in order to control pile-ups, but if by not identifying
every QSO  ARRL are willing to accept the practice for DXCC then so be it.

However, in contests unID and 'split' shows lack of sportsmanship,
incompetence or both.

73,
Ken ZL1AIH .