[CQ-Contest] Your Call?

[Steve London]

Better yet, try to work them. When they come back to you, send them the 
report and "call?". If they ignore you, then move on. You log nothing. 
They log you. They will get a NIL penalty. Good.

73,
Steve, N2IC

On 02/23/2016 03:28 AM, Tom Carrubba KA2D wrote:
> Simple solution. Don't work them!
> I usually S&P and get decent rate going, I will not work a station who
> does not ID in a timely manner.
> Sure, it diminishes my score but it also affects theirs..
>
> So, no ID, no qso
>
> 73 -Tom KA2D
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Drew Vonada-Smith
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 6:14 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Your Call?
>
> All,
>
>
> Key clicks and GJ0KE were indeed annoying this contest.  But what drove
> me nuts, and I am surprised not to be reading it from others yet, was
> the "No ID while running" situation.  ***It has gotten much worse***.
> The practice seems to be most evident in SA and the Caribbean.
>
>
> I heard *many* stations not IDing for a dozen QSOs.  I heard one not ID
> for over 15 minutes - I felt compelled to stay there and measure it.
> This destroys the rate of people doing unassisted S&P.  Many good
> contesters in the Caribbean make great rates and ID every or nearly
> every QSO.  So this practice is a way to improve your rate by a tiny
> fraction at the cost of a HUGE impact on others. This is not within the
> spirit or rules of any contest.  It is poor sportsmanship at best.
>
>
> To make it worse, a few stations (and I will name names from my notes if
> asked) refused a fill even when working a station asking "Call?"  And I
> heard one pointedly answered "NO" when a dozen in the pileup repeatedly
> asked for "CALL?"  This isn't just bad practice, it is spitting in the
> face of others who operate skillfully.
>
>
> I've actually had contesters tell me proudly how efficient they were
> because after each QSO in a big run, they skip the TU and their call and
> just send a dit.  We need to change this mindset.
>
>
> Perhaps no rule changes are needed.  But I call upon all of you to join
> in publicly noting that this isn't acceptable.  And I call upon sponsors
> to get tough on abusers.  If no reasonable attitude is forthcoming, the
> solution is to require a callsign every QSO.  That may be seen by some
> as "extreme", but IMHO, this is best practice in any case.
>
>
> 73, Drew K3PA
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>