[CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.

[rjairam at gmail.com]

That whole problem has to do with what constitutes a completed contact.

Some insist on a 73 both ways. I get NIL from quite a few in regular FT8
(non contest) as they insist on the final additional 73. I usually use RR73
which saves a sequence and thus 15-30 seconds.

This is something that those who never used the mode and yet take swipes at
it because it’s not their granddaddy’s ham radio will never understand.
There is real strategy and operating technique to learn. Not even the best
full automation can cover all edge cases. The guys who run full auto
usually have a ton of NILs. Like regular contesting you need to figure out
your trade off between rate and accuracy.

73
Ria,N2RJ

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 2:26 PM Peter Sundberg <sm2cew at telia.com> wrote:

> But there is a major problem when the contest committee tell us that
> they had to waive the NIL penalty because otherwise a large number of
> stations would end up with a negative score.
>
> Furthermore the committee states the following:
>
> "In the legacy modes, the "fault" for a NIL is most always on the
> side that logged the QSO. For
> the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is, but in any case,
> the amount of NILs is
> abnormally high.  Going forward, FT contesting needs to better define
> how QSO partners can reliably
> communicate whether a QSO is complete and should be logged. The
> responsibility resides both
> with contest participants and FT contest software developers."
>
> Yes Vince, a contest is a contest and the goal is the same. But when
> the operator is unable to decide whether a QSO should be logged or
> not, to me it that's a clear indication that automation has gone too
> far.  Especially when the committee says that the amount of NILs is
> abnormally high.
>
> The operator is "in the back seat" and certainly NOT up front
> driving. Now that's where there's clearly room for criticizing the concept.
>
> 73
> Peter SM2CEW
>
>
>
>
> At 15:20 2020-01-12, DXer wrote:
>
> >As for all the other FT-X 'non-user expert' criticism, a contest is
> >a contest. The goal is the same. Personal sub-interests are just
> >that, personal.
> >
> >73 de Vince, VA3VF
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>