[CQ-Contest] The legacy of not working dupes

Wed Jan 8 12:51:32 EST 2020

I'll just say that some ARRL Volunteer Monitors will be watching for
inappropriate conduct during contests and take appropriate action. This
would apply to US amateurs, only. They do not have jurisdiction over
non-USA hams.

73, Zack W9SZ

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest <
cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:

> Sadly, we will also have some Amateurs who do not care for contesting and
> contesters.  A handful of those will go to the extremes and start hassling
> or jamming those who operate in a contest.  (To say nothing of those who
> have... other issues, but that's another topic for another day)
>
> I've had it happen as well.  Probably most of the operators on this
> reflector can say the same, multiple times over.
>
> Best thing to do is ignore them.  Most will give up after a few minutes,
> once they realize that they're not bothering you in the least.  As far as
> the ones who have issues... well, QSY if you can, and hope that their VFO's
> have rusted...
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jukka Klemola <jpklemola at gmail.com>
> To: Charlie at thegallos.com <charlie at thegallos.com>
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wed, Jan 8, 2020 8:29 am
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The legacy of not working dupes
>
> Clearly, that exceptionally talented individual was not the wheat.
> Maybe chaff?
>
> Keep on calling.
> That bring QSOs into the log and points onto the score.
>
>
> 73,
> Jukka OH6LI
>
>
> ke 8. tammik. 2020 klo 4.47 Charlie at thegallos.com (charlie at thegallos.com)
> kirjoitti:
>
> > Then you get the harassing callers. I had one guy who must not have liked
> > me CQing, and he’d call me every 5 minutes or so, and then finally told
> me
> > to shut up and go way
> >
> > —
> > Charlie
> > 73 de KG2V
> > Http://www.thegallos.com
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 7, 2020, at 1:24 PM, Dave Edmonds <dave at pkministrywebs.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Perfect Stan!
> > >
> > > Dave AFP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:07 AM Stanley Zawrotny <
> k4sbz.stan at gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> People need to update their mindset about dupes. The do NOT give you a
> > >> penalty. Also, do not remove dupes from your log.....several contests
> > now
> > >> state that.
> > >>
> > >> Consider....You work Someone, but he logs you wrong or just forgets to
> > log
> > >> you. He then calls you again an hour later. If you tell him it’s a
> dupe,
> > >> 1. You break your rhythm
> > >> 2. You don’t get credit for him
> > >> 3.  You DO get a NIL  for your entry and ARE penalized for your NIL
> > >>
> > >> However, if you do log him again
> > >> 1. You both get credit for the second QSO. (That’s why you shouldn’t
> > >> remove what you think is a dupe from your log.
> > >> 2. Most contests ignore dupes.
> > >> 3. Most contests will “almost-match” with callsigns that are close.
> They
> > >> won’t give you credit, but they also don’t penalize you with a NIL.
> > >>
> > >> I have had people tell me that their logger won’t allow dupes. Bull!
> > Most
> > >> loggers have settings to allow dupes. Do everyone a favor and correct
> > your
> > >> settings before the next contest.
> > >>
> > >> Contest ebulliently!
> > >>
> > >> Stan, K4SBZ
> > >>
> > >> "Real radio bounces off the sky."
> > >>
> > >>>> On Jan 7, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Joe <nss at mwt.net> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> In the back of my mind I remember the penalty was severe also for
> > >> working a dupe.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't know if it was true or not, it is 40+ years ago after-all,
> But
> > I
> > >> remember of course you lost the credit of the dupe contact, but I also
> > >> remember you were penalized by they removed the QSO before and after
> the
> > >> dupe!
> > >>>
> > >>> So you lost the dupe points and even possibly two more contacts that
> > >> even could have been mults even!
> > >>>
> > >>> Joe WB9SBD
> > >>> Sig
> > >>> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> > >>> Idle Tyme
> > >>> Idle-Tyme.com
> > >>> http://www.idle-tyme.com
> > >>>> On 1/6/2020 11:14 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> > >>>> The "no dupes" came from the fact that it was very difficult to weed
> > >> the dupes out of the logs back before computerized logging.  So
> > "loading up
> > >> on dupes" was a way of "padding the log" and was penalized early on in
> > the
> > >> score keeping.  Today the reverse is true.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The days of sending with one hand and paper logging and dupe
> sheeting
> > >> with the other are long gone too.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ed  N1UR
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+edwards=
> > >> sbelectronics.com at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Blaine
> > >>>> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 9:55 PM
> > >>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The legacy of not working dupes
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It was pretty funny Mike.  But unfortunately in a "watch me shoot my
> > >>>> foot" sort of way.  I got into contesting way too late and missed
> > >>>> whatever it was that drove the no-dupes obsession back in the day.
> > Must
> > >>>> have had something to do with paper logging or labor or something
> like
> > >>>> that.  I'm sure there was a good reason the practice got started.
> > >>>> Clearly that original momentum has plenty of legs even now when it
> > seems
> > >>>> the no-dupe thing is actually bad for biz.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 73/jeff/ac0c
> > >>>> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> > >>>> www.ac0c.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 1/6/20 6:17 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA wrote:
> > >>>>> Jeff,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Like you, I always work dupes.  I work very little RTTY, but in the
> > >> bigger
> > >>>>> CW contests, there always seem to be a very small # of EU's that
> will
> > >> work
> > >>>>> me 2, 3 or even 7 times.  I can only surmise they trawl up and down
> > the
> > >>>>> bottom end of 20m working the stronger NA stations to 'help them
> out'
> > >> in the
> > >>>>> contest and are probably are not using a logging program.  I had to
> > >> tell one
> > >>>>> guy one time after the 5th or 6th QSO in an hour or so "No more!"
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I loved the "don't think so" you got. I found that very funny (and
> > >> very sad
> > >>>>> at the same time) (if that makes sense.)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That'd be a new one on me.  Mike VE9AA
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "..I was S&P and called a guy that had apparently worked me - but
> was
> > >> not in
> > >>>>> my log.  I got the "BEFORE" reply which I get a few times each
> > contest
> > >> and
> > >>>>> for that case, I have a short macro that says "NIL - plz work
> again".
> > >> And
> > >>>>> to my complete amazement the guy sent a reply - apparently typed by
> > >> hand as
> > >>>>> the pace was a bit slower than normal macro exchange speed - "dont
> > >> think
> > >>>>> so."  Wow, never had someone tell me that.  So the net result of
> > >> this is
> > >>>>> he lost a point because he's not in my log and that will pop in the
> > >> cross
> > >>>>> check. And we must have wasted a minute or two doing the dance.
> Good
> > >> move
> > >>>>> all around, OM! .."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> www.ac0c.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Keswick Ridge, NB
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> 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
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> 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
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>