[CQ-Contest] "It's just to save on typing"

[Ria Jairam]

That is an excellent synopsis of why we should copy what is sent. Spot on.

Here is another scenario that plays out in DX contests especially that is
pertinent.

In a recent contest I was running on 40 meters. Then all of a sudden I
noticed a flood of dupes. I try to tell
them that we worked before but I did log a few dupes, only because I always
log dupes and it’s the right thing to do (unless contest rules say having
dupes will result in penalties). Plus it’s easier to just log dupes rather
than kill your rate. After about a dozen or so I got curious and looked at
the cluster (the contest rules allow it for all categories.)

Turns out I was spotted as NR2J.

People were blindly clicking cluster spots and trying to work me. It’s not
like I have a weak signal either. I identify after every QSO because I hate
the practice of working a lot of stations with just “QRZ?”

I feel that using external sources fosters this kind of behavior. This is
why I run unassisted. This is why I feel that we have an over reliance on
external sources and we trust those more than what we hear on air. In the
end this is a RADIO contest and we need to rely more on the RADIO instead
of external sources.

Hans has his own motivation for changing his exchange and you may argue
whether it’s against the rules or not on his part - but in the end if you
don’t copy what he sends and submits in his log, it’s likely that you will
lose that QSO. The end.

So what is the best course of action here? Criticizing him for changing his
exchange? Or listening to what he actually sends? Which is easier? I know
what I will do.

“Accuracy transcends speed” - is the motto of FISTS CW club. That is
especially important in this contest.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 7:56 AM Radio KØHB <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Since I am one of those whose SweepStakes exchange may be unstable from
> year to year, I’ll offer my explanation why.
>
> You may agree, or you may not agree with my rationale.  No problem to me
> either way.  It is what it is.
>
> So here goes.
>
> It is my conviction that RadioSport contests should measure some skill,
> and should reward those radiomen most accomplished in whatever skill is
> being measured.
>
> Different contests are arranged, deliberately or not, to measure different
> skills and talents.
>
> CQWW, as one example, measures a complex skill set which requires a good
> radioman to balance high run rates against an effective harvest of
> multipliers, a fine sense of propagation awareness, and knowing when to
> defer high run rate on one band in order to harvest fleeting multipliers on
> a slower band.  The exchange of information in this contest is quite
> predictable, and not challenging to copy.  If you correctly copy the call
> sign “K0HB” then your logging program will fill in “59 4”.    In summary,
> CQWW measures run rate and aggregate multiplier harvest, with less emphasis
> on copying the content of the exchange.
>
> SweepStakes has a different emphasis.  Run rate is still of some
> importance, especially early in the contest, but not nearly to the extent
> as in CQWW.   The number of multipliers in SS is miniscule compared to
> CQWW, only 83 vs possible thousands in CQWW.  In fact, “chasing mults” in
> SS is a really poor use of time, since nearly every one except a small
> handful will fall into your log in the normal course of operating for 24
> hours.  So high run rate and effective multiplier harvest are NOT skills
> particularly measured by SS.
>
> The challenge in SS is the ability to copy a complex exchange.  SS has its
> roots in traffic handling (the 5-element exchange mimics the ARRL message
> header format).
>
> In traffic handling, none of those 5 elements are predictable
> message-to-message, let alone year-to-year.  They are not “unchanging facts”
>
>  If SS is built to measure  the ability to copy a complex and
> unpredictable header, then making the exchange “predictable” devalues the
> very skill set we set out reward.  The more uncertainty we can introduce
> into the content of the exchange, the better the contest will measure and
> reward those radiomen most skilled in copying complex information
> accurately.
>
> My purpose isn’t to confuse you; it is to challenge you to develop the
> skills required to score high in SweepStakes.
>
> On the other hand, you may have different fingers.
>
> 73, de Hans, KØHB
> "Just a boy and his radio"™
>
> From: Michael Clarson
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 9:30 PM
> To: Ria Jairam
> Cc: Ron Notarius W3WN; CQ-Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] "It's just to save on typing"
>
> To others following the thread: Perhaps someone can clarify:  I fail
> to understand why one would want to  confuse those using prefills by
> purposely changing information that is supposed to be an unchanging
> fact -- year first licensed. Requests for repeats slow both stations
> down. I guess we all contest for different reasons. --Mike, WV2ZOW
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>