[CQ-Contest] Log dupes in SS (or any 'Test)

[Tom Haavisto]

Thanks for bringing this up.

There were several folks sending "QSO B4", and I am not sure what the
purpose of it was.
Clearly, EVERYONE is using computerized logging these days, and if one
person decided it is not a dupe, best bet is to work him again.  Yes - I
worked several dupes, and was happy to do so.

I infer the "QSO B4" types expect me to go search through my log, figure
out what time I worked him, how I busted his call, and go back and fix it...

Bottom line is - quicker to just work him again!

Not quite sure how to handle a busted call on the cluster - that seems to
be a separate issue, but it does help find the folks claiming unassisted,
then working the "busted spot", and NOT using the cluster :-)

Tom - VE3CX


On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Art Boyars <artboyars at gmail.com> wrote:

> I finally figure out my SS CW LCR from 2014.
>
> I worked VA3xx, but fat-fingered his call to VXA3xx.  So, when I heard him
> much later he did not show as a dupe, and I worked him again.
>
> My LCR shows "busted call", with penalty, for the VXA3xx QSO.  That's OK.
> I blew it; typing counts.
>
> But the LCR also shows NIL for the VA3xx QSO.  I infer that he decided not
> to log the dupe QSO ... so I got another penalty.
>
> So, fellow contesters, I propose that it's OK to say "Dupe" or "QSO B4" or
> whatever, and save time by not working the dupe.  But if you do work one,
> please leave it in your log.  That is, please do not delete the QSO unless
> the other guy agrees that it is a dupe.
>
> 73, Art K3KU
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>