[CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 254, Issue 6
NM5M
nm5meric at gmail.com
Tue Feb 6 12:22:08 EST 2024
A solution to the ack issue is to make a QSO count (via log checking) only if the info is correct on both sides.
Those super competitive would be incentivized to be sure their info was received correctly.
Eric NM5M
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 6, 2024, at 11:00 AM, cq-contest-request at contesting.com wrote:
>
> Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
> cq-contest at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cq-contest-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cq-contest-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (K9MA)
> 2. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Tim Shoppa)
> 3. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Steve London)
> 4. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Jack Brindle)
> 5. Re: Self spot in ARRL DX (Henry Pollock - K4TMC)
> 6. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (n3bb at mindspring.com)
> 7. Re: Self spot in ARRL DX (Mike Fatchett W0MU)
> 8. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (marko.n5zo at gmail.com)
> 9. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Jim Brown)
> 10. Re: Self spot in ARRL DX (Jim Brown)
> 11. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Barry Jacobson)
> 12. Re: Self spot in ARRL DX (john at kk9a.com)
> 13. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Jack Brindle)
> 14. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Tom Hellem)
> 15. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Barry Jacobson)
> 16. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Jim Brown)
> 17. Re: Acking Sprint QSO's (Jim Brown)
> 18. Course Outline posted for 2024 Dayton CTU (Tim Duffy)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 11:08:17 -0600
> From: K9MA <k9ma at sdellington.us>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID: <bad42397-e460-4e64-8853-aa482aff81b3 at sdellington.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>> On 2/5/2024 8:44 AM, Randy Farmer wrote:
>> I agree there's a problem somewhere, but I think it's a matter of
>> hyper-competitive participants. I always have trouble getting through,
>> but I make it my practice to wait to hear the ack before calling the
>> owner of the new frequency.
>
> Exactly. That's why I gave up on the NCCC Sprints.
>
> 73,
>
> Scott K9MA
>
> --
> Scott K9MA
>
> k9ma at sdellington.us
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 12:13:04 -0500
> From: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com>
> To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ_qRvY2LOcTu_tP5P3gFcQ7DRRXNrbBAJfTm_y2phnt79fyxQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Steve we have a lot of "dit dit" discussion in nccc-blue, the Thursday
> night NCCC NS Sprint reflector. It would be great for you to join us there
> and on Thursday nights!
>
> Specific to the 4-hour event Saturday night:
>
> I waited and did at least a "dit dit" after each successful Q, and even did
> "TU TU TU" if conditions were truly marginal. I know several hardcore guys
> QSY'ed as soon as they got my number (maybe they sent the dit dit when I
> started my name then QSY'd).
>
> To everyone's credit.... I started sending NR NR NR NR if I missed a guys
> number before he completed his transmission, and each and every time I got
> a repeat of his number while others stood by. That in itself felt like a
> triumph of technique over QRM and impatient ops.
>
> Tim N3QE
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:14:43 -0700
> From: Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com>
> To: Randy Farmer <w8fn at windstream.net>
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID:
> <CAB7zQ=3LR5WeU9dHe_V=QDn2isFhjF=ofHz6PTft_6ieU9DFkw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I will wait a second so the ack is sent and heard.....unless someone else
> jumps in, without waiting. As Randy says, if you wait, you usually lose the
> jump ball.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 9:32?AM Randy Farmer <w8fn at windstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> I agree there's a problem somewhere, but I think it's a matter of
>> hyper-competitive participants. I always have trouble getting through,
>> but I make it my practice to wait to hear the ack before calling the
>> owner of the new frequency. I can't say how many times I got beat out by
>> someone jumping in before they were sure the QSO was final, but it was a
>> bunch. On the other hand, I had some QSOs that I'm not sure are going to
>> be good because I asked for fills on the number and instead got greeted
>> by one or more stations dumping their calls over the ack. How about
>> everybody just toning down the red mist and learning to wait a half
>> second or so before punching the TX button?
>>
>> 73...
>> Randy, W8FN
>>
>>> On 2/5/2024 8:06 AM, Barry Jacobson wrote:
>>> Hi Jack, I don't think Steve's issue is the same as yours. Suppose
>>> everybody followed the format as you suggest. There is still a problem.
>> In
>>> a normal contest when running, and after getting the caller's info
>> verified
>>> correct, you would say TU QRZ W6FB. That let's the previous guy know that
>>> you copied him correctly, and let's the next guys know when it's time to
>>> jump.
>>>
>>> In the sprint, you are not allowed to say QRZ without 5 KHz QSY. So how
>>> does the responding station know that the CQer copied him correctly and
>>> doesn't need a fill just because the responder concluded with his own
>> call.
>>> And then if everybody jumps at that point, the caller may not be able to
>>> get a fill that he needs. This is what I believe Steve is addressing.
>>> Before jumping, one needs to hear from the previous CQer some type of
>>> acknowledgement that he copied the responder properly and is finished
>> with
>>> QSO. Only then should people jump in.
>>>
>>> This is how I understand Steve N2IC.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Barry WA2VIU
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 11:19:47 -0600
> From: Jack Brindle <jackbrindle at me.com>
> To: CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID: <105088BF-FAAF-44C5-BCB8-E71DDE8B9454 at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Actually I was only contemplating single-band operation. The Sprint format is really interesting and has quite a history. It was created by W6OAT probably 30 years ago (wish I had been at that gathering), and really took off when N6ZFO created the NS Sprint (sponsored by NCCC). It is in the NS Sprint that the format has really evolved. Many of the best CW ops in North America participate in the Thursday evening NS Sprints. They know each other, know what will be sent, so the only thing they need is the serial number. These folks have honed to protocol to an art - thus the order of the exchange really matters. If the sender?s call comes early in the exchange, it means that it is coming from the CQer. If late, it is an invitation for others to call, basically a short form for the CQ. In general, it works quite well in NS Sprint.
>
> A problem arises when someone sends the wrong exchange, telling others that it is OK to call, or in my case, sending over the other stations exchange. In this case, order does matter. But, as has been pointed out, there is an additional potential problem if the CQer doesn?t acknowledge receipt of the S&P station?s exchange. I received both R and dit-dit after many Qs, but definitely not all. If the station needs a fill, then there is simply no opportunity to request it if there is no ack, especially if a stronger station starts calling at the same time. For those of us who are network protocol engineers, that lack of a closing ack is non-sensical.
>
> What?s the answer? First, participate in NS Sprint. These folks know the ins and outs of the Sprint format, and are constantly discussing ways to make it better. They may have gone a little extra in not using an ack (I emphasize that not all skip it), and will have suggestions as to how to improve your (and my) operation. Secondly, they are open to suggestions and are quite willing to discuss improvements. Most likely, they have already tried many of our suggestions, and if so can tell us how it fared, and why it was or wasn?t adopted.
>
> NS Sprint is held on Thursday evenings local time, Friday UTC at 0230 - 0300Z. More info at: https://www.ncccsprint.com/
> They also have an email list where these things are discussed - see the web page for info.
>
> 73,
> Jack, W6FB
> ps - thanks to N6ZFO for the prod...
>
>
>> On Feb 5, 2024, at 9:00?AM, Chris Plumblee <chris.plumblee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Barry,
>>
>> The problem that Jack is alluding to is specific to QSO?s on a second and third band when you?re running. You really only need the caller?s number; you already have their name and state. At one time, unscrupulous ops would copy the number and tune away, leaving the report unacknowledged and the person who?d inherited the frequency unsure if they should log the QSO or not.
>>
>> I?ve been a middling sprinter for a little while - the software makes it difficult to flub the order of the exchange elements and there are always edge cases (Tnx W1NVT and VE7ZO for the sprint QSOs when you weren?t in the Sprint, for example). I would not be in favor of mandating the order of the exchange because that suggests that you throw out QSOs that weren?t completed in the proper order.
>>
>> For a while, the fashion was to send just a ?dit dit? as an acknowledgement. Peer pressure has worked to make the standard acknowledgement either ?X? (?TU? run together) or ?R?. It?s still an art to detect whether you got an acknowledgement when you have a couple of new, loud callers.
>>
>> 73,
>> Chris W4WF
>>
>> Chris Plumblee
>> 407.494.5155
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:55?AM Barry Jacobson <bdj at alum.mit.edu <mailto:bdj at alum.mit.edu>> wrote:
>>> Hi Jack, I don't think Steve's issue is the same as yours. Suppose
>>> everybody followed the format as you suggest. There is still a problem. In
>>> a normal contest when running, and after getting the caller's info verified
>>> correct, you would say TU QRZ W6FB. That let's the previous guy know that
>>> you copied him correctly, and let's the next guys know when it's time to
>>> jump.
>>>
>>> In the sprint, you are not allowed to say QRZ without 5 KHz QSY. So how
>>> does the responding station know that the CQer copied him correctly and
>>> doesn't need a fill just because the responder concluded with his own call.
>>> And then if everybody jumps at that point, the caller may not be able to
>>> get a fill that he needs. This is what I believe Steve is addressing.
>>> Before jumping, one needs to hear from the previous CQer some type of
>>> acknowledgement that he copied the responder properly and is finished with
>>> QSO. Only then should people jump in.
>>>
>>> This is how I understand Steve N2IC.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Barry WA2VIU
>>>
>>> --
>>> Barry Jacobson
>>> WA2VIU
>>> bdj at alum.mit.edu <mailto:bdj at alum.mit.edu>
>>> @bdj_phd
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 7:48 AM Jack Brindle via CQ-Contest <
>>> cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice troll, Steve, but I?ll bite.
>>>>
>>>> There actually is a problem in NA Sprint. It involves the exchange order.
>>>> It seems the Sprint format has evolved over the years, and that has been
>>>> brought into NA Sprint in the form of ?unwritten rules?.
>>>>
>>>> The NA Sprint rules, for the exchange, state:
>>>> "7. Exchange: To have a valid exchange, you must send all of the following
>>>> information:
>>>> The other station?s call sign, your call sign, a sequential serial number,
>>>> your name,
>>>> and your location (state, province or country). You may send this
>>>> information in any order.
>>>> For example:
>>>> N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
>>>> K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
>>>>
>>>> Note that it fully states that either format (or any other) is perfectly
>>>> OK. But, in practice, this is not the case. The unwritten rule states that
>>>> when you send CQ, you must send the exchange as follows:
>>>> N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
>>>> and when doing the S&P role, your exchange must take the form:
>>>> K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
>>>>
>>>> I used the second form for my exchange. Eight very experienced Sprinters
>>>> responded over the end of my call, so that I did not hear the beginning of
>>>> their transmission, including the serial number. I managed to get a fill
>>>> from a few, but the rest will look forward to a NIL.
>>>>
>>>> One of the rules we push to new contesters is to read the rules before a
>>>> contest. In this case the rules lead you astray.
>>>>
>>>> The SSB Sprint has the same rule, but they also have a tips section that
>>>> explains the format you should use for the exchange whether you are running
>>>> or S&P. That tips section is referred to in the exchange rule.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion is that it is time to take a good look at the NA Sprint
>>>> rules and bring them up to date with these new unwritten rules which have
>>>> evolved over time. If the order matters (and it is clear that it does),
>>>> then the rules should say so!
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise we have a contest that is very unfriendly to new contestants who
>>>> don?t know the unwritten rules. This type of contest will eventually die?
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Jack, W6FB
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 4, 2024, at 5:02?PM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com <mailto:n2icarrl at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There's been some grousing about Sprint QSO's not being acked, or the ack
>>>>> getting covered by other stations calling.
>>>>>
>>>>> May I suggest we all use RR73 to ack in the September Sprint ?
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>> Steve, N2IC
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 12:56:44 -0500
> From: Henry Pollock - K4TMC <kilo4tmc at gmail.com>
> To: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com>
> Cc: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com>, CQ-Contest Reflector
> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spot in ARRL DX
> Message-ID:
> <CAGJtcTc3xMzTFNM-V8Y1N11HdahMyWTupeoGWqdu9r3kV0Vu3w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Stan, thanks for the followup. You made some interesting valid points, such
> that I now realize I am in the wrong league. Plus, this thread has now
> shifted.
>
> I am just an old guy playing with his radios (always low power) and
> antennas trying to keep the playing field as level as possible in the
> unassisted category where I compete. I still enjoy the thrill of making
> QSOs and finding mults by either running, or S&P using the radio?s tuning
> knob. For the first time, I managed a clean sweep in the NovSS Phone
> without any assistance *initiated by me*. I don?t know if I got spotted by
> any friends or not.
>
> 73 & High Rates,
>
> Henry - K4TMC
>
>
>
>
>> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 2:25?PM Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ?Henry,
>>
>> No one said complaints were particularly from those in unassisted
>> category, did they?
>>
>>
>> It seems so unethical to gain some assistance while declaring to be
>> unassisted.
>>
>>
>> You consider self spotting ?some assistance? but don?t think my buddy
>> spotting me every time I change frequency is assistance?
>>
>> Assistance has always been defined pretty much as using something other
>> than your own senses to provide callsigns and frequencies for stations you
>> can go work. Alternating CQs on two bands, running people in 2BSIQ mode at
>> roughly 70% faster than you could ever do it on one band isn?t assistance,
>> nor is being spotted by your friends and now by yourself in case you don?t
>> have any friends.
>>
>> Personally I don?t see this as such a big deal. It takes some amount of
>> luck out of the equation. Certainly those in the assisted category don?t
>> mind having more spots to click on - right? And those in unassisted
>> category are now on a roughly level field regarding their frequency being
>> known, if they want it to be known.
>>
>> Under the old rules If you were competing against someone in any category
>> and they ?happened? to get spotted within a minute or two every time they
>> fired up on a frequency and you never got spotted within 20 minutes of
>> starting on a frequency, you probably wouldn?t like it.
>>
>> 73?Stan, K5GO
>>
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2024, at 9:52?AM, Henry Pollock - K4TMC <kilo4tmc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Re ??people complaining after the contest that so and so had all his
>> friends spot him while I didn?t get any spots from my friends.?
>>
>>
>> Wow?did we really have that many people who were operating *unassisted*
>> complaining about not getting spotted? If so, in my opinion, there is
>> something wrong with this scenario. It seems so unethical to gain some
>> assistance while declaring to be unassisted. As someone noted earlier in
>> this thread ? it?s like calling CQ with another radio.
>>
>> When I operate unassisted I already know that I am at a disadvantage
>> versus those who are assisted, relative to score total.
>>
>> Why not limit self-spotting to only those in the assisted and unlimited
>> categories?
>>
>>
>> If this battle is lost...Going forward, I would like to see the numbers of
>> those in the unassisted category who self-spotted, maybe add in their
>> Soapbox comments - 'SSPT'.
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to ARRL DX SSB.
>>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Henry - K4TMC
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 11:03?PM Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The question was whether everyone in every category could self spot or
>>> why allow everyone to self spot.
>>>
>>> The answer is that it makes it more nearly fair for everyone versus
>>> people complaining after the contest that so and so had all his friends
>>> spot him while I didn?t get any spots from my friends. If everyone has an
>>> equal opportunity to let it be known what frequency they are calling CQ on,
>>> it seems fair.
>>>
>>> I made a comparison that you are in effect self spotting just by calling
>>> CQ on CW because you will be spotted on RBN assuming you have an antenna
>>> connected. If some are not seeing the RBN spots, I don?t see it as a flaw
>>> in allowing self spotting but instead an even more desirable thing! If
>>> someone isn?t looking at RBN spots, but looking at DX Summit in a contest,
>>> he will be calling those who have their friends spotting them and not be
>>> calling those who didn?t have friends spot them. If everyone can self
>>> spot, he is as likely to call one as the other.
>>>
>>> Self spotting on CW ensures that regardless of whether the assisted S&P
>>> operators are only looking at DX Summit type spots or whether they are only
>>> looking at RBN spots or a combination of the two, they will know where
>>> everyone who is serious is located.
>>>
>>> It is not surprising there is a big difference between the number of
>>> callers when you have a real spot versus just an RBN spot, especially in a
>>> non contest environment like people working some 1x1 callsign on a Tuesday
>>> night. If I were to turn the radio on for a few minutes when there is not
>>> a contest going on I would never open N1MM and connect to a cluster.
>>> Instead I would filter DX Summit for 20m CW, for example, and see what?s on.
>>>
>>> Stan, K5GO
>>>
>>>> On Feb 3, 2024, at 12:44?PM, Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ?Stan, only a fraction of cluster telnet nodes in the widely circulated
>>>> public cluster node lists include RBN spots.
>>>>
>>>> Veteran contesters know that RBN spots are where it's at for CW or RTTY,
>>>> but a more casual ham may not know this. They may have tried a dozen
>>>> different cluster nodes and not found one - or not known how to enable -
>>>> the RBN spots.
>>>>
>>>> Tim N3QE
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 18:33:19 +0000
> From: n3bb at mindspring.com
> To: Chris Plumblee <chris.plumblee at gmail.com>, Barry Jacobson
> <bdj at alum.mit.edu>
> Cc: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>, Jack Brindle
> <jackbrindle at me.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID: <76850957-7ec2-b4d7-b752-dbbbdcab2515 at mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Jack, W6FB, has it exactly right. The sequence for acknowledging for both when you will inherit the freq, and when you must QSY, is clearly stated in his two examples. Perhaps someone would include this little "example snippet" in the rules. Personally this is the way I operate, and have had no problems with it at all.
>
> Jim N3BB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Plumblee <chris.plumblee at gmail.com>
> Sent: Feb 5, 2024 9:58 AM
> To: Barry Jacobson <bdj at alum.mit.edu>
> Cc: CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>, Jack Brindle <jackbrindle at me.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
>
> Hello Barry,
>
> The problem that Jack is alluding to is specific to QSO’s on a second and
> third band when you’re running. You really only need the caller’s number;
> you already have their name and state. At one time, unscrupulous ops would
> copy the number and tune away, leaving the report unacknowledged and the
> person who’d inherited the frequency unsure if they should log the QSO or
> not.
>
> I’ve been a middling sprinter for a little while - the software makes it
> difficult to flub the order of the exchange elements and there are always
> edge cases (Tnx W1NVT and VE7ZO for the sprint QSOs when you weren’t in the
> Sprint, for example). I would not be in favor of mandating the order of the
> exchange because that suggests that you throw out QSOs that weren’t
> completed in the proper order.
>
> For a while, the fashion was to send just a “dit dit” as an
> acknowledgement. Peer pressure has worked to make the standard
> acknowledgement either “X” (“TU” run together) or “R”. It’s still an art to
> detect whether you got an acknowledgement when you have a couple of new,
> loud callers.
>
> 73,
> Chris W4WF
>
> Chris Plumblee
> 407.494.5155
>
>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:55?AM Barry Jacobson wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jack, I don't think Steve's issue is the same as yours. Suppose
>> everybody followed the format as you suggest. There is still a problem. In
>> a normal contest when running, and after getting the caller's info verified
>> correct, you would say TU QRZ W6FB. That let's the previous guy know that
>> you copied him correctly, and let's the next guys know when it's time to
>> jump.
>>
>> In the sprint, you are not allowed to say QRZ without 5 KHz QSY. So how
>> does the responding station know that the CQer copied him correctly and
>> doesn't need a fill just because the responder concluded with his own call.
>> And then if everybody jumps at that point, the caller may not be able to
>> get a fill that he needs. This is what I believe Steve is addressing.
>> Before jumping, one needs to hear from the previous CQer some type of
>> acknowledgement that he copied the responder properly and is finished with
>> QSO. Only then should people jump in.
>>
>> This is how I understand Steve N2IC.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Barry WA2VIU
>>
>> --
>> Barry Jacobson
>> WA2VIU
>> bdj at alum.mit.edu
>> @bdj_phd
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 7:48 AM Jack Brindle via CQ-Contest cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nice troll, Steve, but I’ll bite.
>>>
>>> There actually is a problem in NA Sprint. It involves the exchange order.
>>> It seems the Sprint format has evolved over the years, and that has been
>>> brought into NA Sprint in the form of “unwritten rules”.
>>>
>>> The NA Sprint rules, for the exchange, state:
>>> "7. Exchange: To have a valid exchange, you must send all of the
>> following
>>> information:
>>> The other station’s call sign, your call sign, a sequential serial
>> number,
>>> your name,
>>> and your location (state, province or country). You may send this
>>> information in any order.
>>> For example:
>>> N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
>>> K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
>>>
>>> Note that it fully states that either format (or any other) is perfectly
>>> OK. But, in practice, this is not the case. The unwritten rule states
>> that
>>> when you send CQ, you must send the exchange as follows:
>>> N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
>>> and when doing the S&P role, your exchange must take the form:
>>> K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
>>>
>>> I used the second form for my exchange. Eight very experienced Sprinters
>>> responded over the end of my call, so that I did not hear the beginning
>> of
>>> their transmission, including the serial number. I managed to get a fill
>>> from a few, but the rest will look forward to a NIL.
>>>
>>> One of the rules we push to new contesters is to read the rules before a
>>> contest. In this case the rules lead you astray.
>>>
>>> The SSB Sprint has the same rule, but they also have a tips section that
>>> explains the format you should use for the exchange whether you are
>> running
>>> or S&P. That tips section is referred to in the exchange rule.
>>>
>>> My suggestion is that it is time to take a good look at the NA Sprint
>>> rules and bring them up to date with these new unwritten rules which have
>>> evolved over time. If the order matters (and it is clear that it does),
>>> then the rules should say so!
>>>
>>> Otherwise we have a contest that is very unfriendly to new contestants
>> who
>>> don’t know the unwritten rules. This type of contest will eventually die…
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Jack, W6FB
>>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 2024, at 5:02?PM, Steve London wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There's been some grousing about Sprint QSO's not being acked, or the
>> ack
>>>> getting covered by other stations calling.
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest we all use RR73 to ack in the September Sprint ?
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Steve, N2IC
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 11:47:25 -0700
> From: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w0mu at w0mu.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spot in ARRL DX
> Message-ID: <81b7f4f4-ef12-4270-8f4b-0b00d7d73ad2 at w0mu.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> VE7CC the Author of CC Cluster confirmed that RBN spots are NOT stored
> for lookup.? It makes sense as on some contest weekends a cluster can
> see 10m, MILLION spots over the weekend.? Other Clusters may act
> differently.
>
> 73
>
> W0MU
>
>> On 2/4/2024 10:28 PM, Mike Fatchett W0MU wrote:
>> That is very curious.? My cluster w0mu.net? w0mu-1? CC cluster
>> includes RBN Spots as do most of the CC clusters that I know of. There
>> is a way to turn them off.? Many logging programs and CC User allow
>> the users some fairly extensive filtering.? I checked the RBN and N1W
>> was being heard and spotted.? That filtering should block or allow
>> regular or rbn spots though.
>>
>> When I did a lookup of N1W on my cluster sh/dx N1W 1000 (1000 spots)?
>> No RBN spots were shown.? I don't seem to be able to lookup any RBN
>> spots, so it is possible that VE7CC does not save rbn spots due to the
>> size of the files that could be created.? I will contact Lee and ask.
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>>> On 2/2/2024 8:18 PM, Randy Thompson wrote:
>>> During the N1W operation over the past month, we could call CQ on CW
>>> and not get much action.? When we spotted ourselves the crowd
>>> immediately showed up.? The obvious conclusion is that most people
>>> are not watching RBN.? Could be a variety of reasons for this.
>>>
>>> Contesters are more aware of RBN and are willing to set their filters
>>> and software to accommodate.
>>>
>>> Randy
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com at contesting.com>
>>> On Behalf Of john at kk9a.com
>>> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 9:46 PM
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spot in ARRL DX
>>>
>>> Is that true Randy, most casual DXers are not seeing skimmer spots??
>>> W3LPL automatically posts some of less common DX skimmer spots on the
>>> cluster but
>>> the rest of the skimmer spots go unnoticed??? If that is correct,
>>> then more
>>> stations should be self-spotting on RTTY and CW when allowed.? I have
>>> never self-spotted on RTTY or CW.
>>>
>>> The spotting network has existed since I believe the 80's and prior
>>> to that rarer DX stations were announced on 2m repeaters so tuning
>>> for DX stations has not been necessary for a long time. Of course it
>>> is much easier now to click and work, maybe so easy that some
>>> stations don't feel the need to regularly identify.? Without spotting
>>> we would all probably be making a lot less QSOs so the cluster is
>>> adding to everyone's fun, regardless of category.? Fortunately you
>>> can still operate unassisted (un-unlimited) in most major contests
>>> and have the thrill of finding that new multiplier or band opening
>>> however operating assisted (unlimited) can also be fun.
>>>
>>> John KK9A
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Randy Thompson k5zd wrote:
>>>
>>> The flaw in this argument is that many (most?) hams don't subscribe
>>> to RBN spots.? Self spotting on CW actually helps reach another layer
>>> or two of casual ops and DXers in a contest.? So arguing that using
>>> it on phone is just an analog for RBN is not quite true.
>>>
>>> Self spotting is another form of calling CQ using the Internet
>>> instead of radio.
>>>
>>> It does seem the hobby has evolved to the point where making a
>>> contact by any means is more fun/important than using tuning skills.?
>>> Disappointing, but it is what it is. On we go into the future.
>>>
>>> Randy K5ZD
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 11:53:20 -0800
> From: <marko.n5zo at gmail.com>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID: <0fd101da586c$f8b16ae0$ea1440a0$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> What am I missing...? Written rule says already this: "You may send this
> information in any order."
>
> Personally I always try to send information in preferred order, but it
> happens to me sometimes that program (N1MM+) is in wrong mode ie in CQ mode
> and I answered someone pressing F4 and then my message goes out in
> non-preferred order. Hmmm, maybe I need to include macro to put program in
> S&P mode into my F4 button... But anyway, written rules specifically state
> that order is not important.
>
> Actually I think in my operating this situation of non-preferred message
> order happens mostly because I operate SO2R with 2 networked computers and
> N1MM+ on other radio 2 may have been left on CQ mode while I was doing QSOs
> on radio 1 and then when I'm done with those I answer someone on radio 2 by
> pressing F4. I will be thinking improvements to remedy this and will try
> those in NCCC Sprints.
> 73 de Marko N5ZO
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 21:31:46 -0600
> From: Jack Brindle <jackbrindle at me.com>
> To: CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID: <0F833221-A839-472E-88FB-F22337F8CF04 at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Nice troll, Steve, but I?ll bite.
>
> There actually is a problem in NA Sprint. It involves the exchange order. It
> seems the Sprint format has evolved over the years, and that has been
> brought into NA Sprint in the form of ?unwritten rules?.
>
> The NA Sprint rules, for the exchange, state:
> "7. Exchange: To have a valid exchange, you must send all of the following
> information:
> The other station?s call sign, your call sign, a sequential serial number,
> your name, and your location (state, province or country). You may send this
> information in any order.
> For example:
> N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
> K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
>
> Note that it fully states that either format (or any other) is perfectly OK.
> But, in practice, this is not the case. The unwritten rule states that when
> you send CQ, you must send the exchange as follows:
> N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
> and when doing the S&P role, your exchange must take the form:
> K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
>
> I used the second form for my exchange. Eight very experienced Sprinters
> responded over the end of my call, so that I did not hear the beginning of
> their transmission, including the serial number. I managed to get a fill
> from a few, but the rest will look forward to a NIL.
>
> One of the rules we push to new contesters is to read the rules before a
> contest. In this case the rules lead you astray.
>
> The SSB Sprint has the same rule, but they also have a tips section that
> explains the format you should use for the exchange whether you are running
> or S&P. That tips section is referred to in the exchange rule.
>
> My suggestion is that it is time to take a good look at the NA Sprint rules
> and bring them up to date with these new unwritten rules which have evolved
> over time. If the order matters (and it is clear that it does), then the
> rules should say so!
>
> Otherwise we have a contest that is very unfriendly to new contestants who
> don?t know the unwritten rules. This type of contest will eventually die?
>
> 73,
> Jack, W6FB
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 11:58:42 -0800
> From: Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID:
> <0c48b229-8b7e-4fb6-95d4-0c8e9bec7503 at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>> On 2/5/2024 5:06 AM, Barry Jacobson wrote:
>> you would say TU QRZ W6FB.
>
> QRZ in this situation is a time waster. If you have had multiple callers
> for the QSO we just finished, TU is the right response. If not, TU W6FB
> is all that is needed.
>
> That let's the previous guy know that
>> you copied him correctly, and let's the next guys know when it's time to
>> jump.
>>
>> In the sprint, you are not allowed to say QRZ without 5 KHz QSY. So how
>> does the responding station know that the CQer copied him correctly and
>> doesn't need a fill just because the responder concluded with his own call.
>
> When I need a fill in this situation, I simply send a string of dits and
> ask for my fill. If I don't need a fill, I send a dit. As the station
> who will be CQing, I don't like it when the other station doesn't do that.
>
> The un-written rule that W6FB talks about IS written, but not in the
> contest Rules. It's in a piece on the NCCC website that I found many
> years ago. Don't remember who wrote it, but I'm guess-remembering N6TR.
> In a 4-hour Sprint, I rarely encounter more than two or three QSOs that
> don't follow it. When I started Sprinting 10-15 years ago, W7WHY shared
> his N1MM macro file with me.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 12:04:00 -0800
> From: Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spot in ARRL DX
> Message-ID:
> <045c6d45-71bf-425e-8c0e-f8a85b623573 at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>> On 2/5/2024 5:45 AM, Joe wrote:
>> I use VE7CC as my default cluster, and I see RBN spots all the time.
>> Even my own when I am CQing.
>
> Yes, that's what I use. I'm near San Francisco, so when I'm Assisted, I
> use CCluster so that I see spots from west of the Rockies, KH6, KL7, and
> MD. My logic is that I want to see who's on a frequency where I'm
> running or want to run that I don't hear.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:17:49 -0500
> From: Barry Jacobson <bdj at alum.mit.edu>
> To: k9yc at arrl.net
> Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID:
> <CACZHgvY07qCnzLhPAF+SQQEDhd0k2F9JJHVectRQom996LyVDQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I agree, Jim, but wrote QRZ for an example of why an Ack is important in
> some form. In regular contests have started omitting and just sending TU
> WA2VIU.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Barry Jacobson
> WA2VIU
> bdj at alum.mit.edu
> @bdj_phd
>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 3:35 PM Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/5/2024 5:06 AM, Barry Jacobson wrote:
>>> you would say TU QRZ W6FB.
>>
>> QRZ in this situation is a time waster. If you have had multiple callers
>> for the QSO we just finished, TU is the right response. If not, TU W6FB
>> is all that is needed.
>>
>> That let's the previous guy know that
>>> you copied him correctly, and let's the next guys know when it's time to
>>> jump.
>>>
>>> In the sprint, you are not allowed to say QRZ without 5 KHz QSY. So how
>>> does the responding station know that the CQer copied him correctly and
>>> doesn't need a fill just because the responder concluded with his own
>> call.
>>
>> When I need a fill in this situation, I simply send a string of dits and
>> ask for my fill. If I don't need a fill, I send a dit. As the station
>> who will be CQing, I don't like it when the other station doesn't do that.
>>
>> The un-written rule that W6FB talks about IS written, but not in the
>> contest Rules. It's in a piece on the NCCC website that I found many
>> years ago. Don't remember who wrote it, but I'm guess-remembering N6TR.
>> In a 4-hour Sprint, I rarely encounter more than two or three QSOs that
>> don't follow it. When I started Sprinting 10-15 years ago, W7WHY shared
>> his N1MM macro file with me.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:02:17 -0500
> From: <john at kk9a.com>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spot in ARRL DX
> Message-ID: <001501da5887$5e81e010$1b85a030$@kk9a.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> RBN spots are not stored?
> https://reversebeacon.net/raw_data/#202301
>
> John KK9A
>
> Mike Fatchett W0MU wrote:
>
> VE7CC the Author of CC Cluster confirmed that RBN spots are NOT stored
> for lookup. It makes sense as on some contest weekends a cluster can
> see 10m, MILLION spots over the weekend. Other Clusters may act
> differently.
>
> 73
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:10:58 -0600
> From: Jack Brindle <jackbrindle at me.com>
> To: CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID: <24282D16-9EF3-4C43-835C-480E00AEC4B6 at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Chris et al;
>
> K5ZD has an great tip that it is important to develop a good memory of contesters, their names and QTH. After more than 20 years of membership in NCCC (three times president), folks in NCCC and NS know who I am, the fact that I moved, and where. Also remember that many contesters use history files they have accumulated over the years. What this is to say is that it isn?t just a 2nd or 3rd QSO issue, but rather one that may occur on any QSO. In fact I saw most of my issues on the first QSO with the other person.
>
> I?m still working on the memory thing, but I am very happy to have so many friends, even if it does lead to errors once in a while!
>
> 73,
> Jack, W6FB
> yes, Louisiana!
>
>> On Feb 5, 2024, at 9:00?AM, Chris Plumblee <chris.plumblee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Barry,
>>
>> The problem that Jack is alluding to is specific to QSO?s on a second and third band when you?re running. You really only need the caller?s number; you already have their name and state. At one time, unscrupulous ops would copy the number and tune away, leaving the report unacknowledged and the person who?d inherited the frequency unsure if they should log the QSO or not.
>>
>> I?ve been a middling sprinter for a little while - the software makes it difficult to flub the order of the exchange elements and there are always edge cases (Tnx W1NVT and VE7ZO for the sprint QSOs when you weren?t in the Sprint, for example). I would not be in favor of mandating the order of the exchange because that suggests that you throw out QSOs that weren?t completed in the proper order.
>>
>> For a while, the fashion was to send just a ?dit dit? as an acknowledgement. Peer pressure has worked to make the standard acknowledgement either ?X? (?TU? run together) or ?R?. It?s still an art to detect whether you got an acknowledgement when you have a couple of new, loud callers.
>>
>> 73,
>> Chris W4WF
>>
>> Chris Plumblee
>> 407.494.5155
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:55?AM Barry Jacobson <bdj at alum.mit.edu <mailto:bdj at alum.mit.edu>> wrote:
>>> Hi Jack, I don't think Steve's issue is the same as yours. Suppose
>>> everybody followed the format as you suggest. There is still a problem. In
>>> a normal contest when running, and after getting the caller's info verified
>>> correct, you would say TU QRZ W6FB. That let's the previous guy know that
>>> you copied him correctly, and let's the next guys know when it's time to
>>> jump.
>>>
>>> In the sprint, you are not allowed to say QRZ without 5 KHz QSY. So how
>>> does the responding station know that the CQer copied him correctly and
>>> doesn't need a fill just because the responder concluded with his own call.
>>> And then if everybody jumps at that point, the caller may not be able to
>>> get a fill that he needs. This is what I believe Steve is addressing.
>>> Before jumping, one needs to hear from the previous CQer some type of
>>> acknowledgement that he copied the responder properly and is finished with
>>> QSO. Only then should people jump in.
>>>
>>> This is how I understand Steve N2IC.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Barry WA2VIU
>>>
>>> --
>>> Barry Jacobson
>>> WA2VIU
>>> bdj at alum.mit.edu <mailto:bdj at alum.mit.edu>
>>> @bdj_phd
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 7:48 AM Jack Brindle via CQ-Contest <
>>> cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice troll, Steve, but I?ll bite.
>>>>
>>>> There actually is a problem in NA Sprint. It involves the exchange order.
>>>> It seems the Sprint format has evolved over the years, and that has been
>>>> brought into NA Sprint in the form of ?unwritten rules?.
>>>>
>>>> The NA Sprint rules, for the exchange, state:
>>>> "7. Exchange: To have a valid exchange, you must send all of the following
>>>> information:
>>>> The other station?s call sign, your call sign, a sequential serial number,
>>>> your name,
>>>> and your location (state, province or country). You may send this
>>>> information in any order.
>>>> For example:
>>>> N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
>>>> K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
>>>>
>>>> Note that it fully states that either format (or any other) is perfectly
>>>> OK. But, in practice, this is not the case. The unwritten rule states that
>>>> when you send CQ, you must send the exchange as follows:
>>>> N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
>>>> and when doing the S&P role, your exchange must take the form:
>>>> K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
>>>>
>>>> I used the second form for my exchange. Eight very experienced Sprinters
>>>> responded over the end of my call, so that I did not hear the beginning of
>>>> their transmission, including the serial number. I managed to get a fill
>>>> from a few, but the rest will look forward to a NIL.
>>>>
>>>> One of the rules we push to new contesters is to read the rules before a
>>>> contest. In this case the rules lead you astray.
>>>>
>>>> The SSB Sprint has the same rule, but they also have a tips section that
>>>> explains the format you should use for the exchange whether you are running
>>>> or S&P. That tips section is referred to in the exchange rule.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion is that it is time to take a good look at the NA Sprint
>>>> rules and bring them up to date with these new unwritten rules which have
>>>> evolved over time. If the order matters (and it is clear that it does),
>>>> then the rules should say so!
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise we have a contest that is very unfriendly to new contestants who
>>>> don?t know the unwritten rules. This type of contest will eventually die?
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Jack, W6FB
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 4, 2024, at 5:02?PM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com <mailto:n2icarrl at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There's been some grousing about Sprint QSO's not being acked, or the ack
>>>>> getting covered by other stations calling.
>>>>>
>>>>> May I suggest we all use RR73 to ack in the September Sprint ?
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>> Steve, N2IC
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:20:25 -0700
> From: Tom Hellem <tom.hellem at gmail.com>
> To: K9MA <k9ma at sdellington.us>
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID:
> <CANyX0ArtDKdrEXt0_X=msdbWmf3T7i46YHsX1SFJ_d-73qVcGg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I'm with you on this one. It's exactly as Randy described.
> It's not everybody, but it is a whole lot of ops.
> It's as though they've decided to ignore completely the
> basic fundamentals of good operating practice that we've all
> been taught.
>
> I hear the same thing on the CWOPS mini-tests all the time, almost to a
> greater
> degree. In such a hurry to move on to the next qso, if you ask for a fill,
> they're already gone.
> They really don't care if you've copied the exchange.
> I never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but much of the time, the SSB
> contests seem more civilized.
>
> Tom
> K0SN
>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 1:32?PM K9MA <k9ma at sdellington.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/5/2024 8:44 AM, Randy Farmer wrote:
>>> I agree there's a problem somewhere, but I think it's a matter of
>>> hyper-competitive participants. I always have trouble getting through,
>>> but I make it my practice to wait to hear the ack before calling the
>>> owner of the new frequency.
>>
>> Exactly. That's why I gave up on the NCCC Sprints.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Scott K9MA
>>
>> --
>> Scott K9MA
>>
>> k9ma at sdellington.us
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:56:11 -0500
> From: Barry Jacobson <bdj at alum.mit.edu>
> To: Tom Hellem <tom.hellem at gmail.com>
> Cc: K9MA <k9ma at sdellington.us>, CQ-Contest Reflector
> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID:
> <CACZHgvb3yvotyWowxwFxXqjSY-Dv2o54JJkW4VcgtAfObunFvA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> As this was my first or second sprint, I thought it was just me needing
> some fills. The fact is that the CW is blazing fast, which is not only an
> issue of copying, but of typing. If you lag behind at any point, you are
> likely to forget the number or name and even state by the time you try to
> enter it. Really requires 100% concentration.
>
> Barry WA2VIU
>
> --
> Barry Jacobson
> WA2VIU
> bdj at alum.mit.edu
> @bdj_phd
>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 8:26 PM Tom Hellem <tom.hellem at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm with you on this one. It's exactly as Randy described.
>> It's not everybody, but it is a whole lot of ops.
>> It's as though they've decided to ignore completely the
>> basic fundamentals of good operating practice that we've all
>> been taught.
>>
>> I hear the same thing on the CWOPS mini-tests all the time, almost to a
>> greater
>> degree. In such a hurry to move on to the next qso, if you ask for a fill,
>> they're already gone.
>> They really don't care if you've copied the exchange.
>> I never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but much of the time, the SSB
>> contests seem more civilized.
>>
>> Tom
>> K0SN
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 1:32?PM K9MA <k9ma at sdellington.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/5/2024 8:44 AM, Randy Farmer wrote:
>>>> I agree there's a problem somewhere, but I think it's a matter of
>>>> hyper-competitive participants. I always have trouble getting through,
>>>> but I make it my practice to wait to hear the ack before calling the
>>>> owner of the new frequency.
>>>
>>> Exactly. That's why I gave up on the NCCC Sprints.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Scott K9MA
>>>
>>> --
>>> Scott K9MA
>>>
>>> k9ma at sdellington.us
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 00:42:12 -0800
> From: Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID:
> <3cc3ffdf-a036-4582-bafe-cecfbe09f547 at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>> On 2/5/2024 11:53 AM, marko.n5zo at gmail.com wrote:
>> Hmmm, maybe I need to include macro to put program in
>> S&P mode into my F4 button
>
> Yep, that's what the macro file did that W7WHY gave me many years ago. I
> can still QLF, mostly hitting a wrong key on the logging computer. And
> old age is making it worse. :)
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 00:45:28 -0800
> From: Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's
> Message-ID:
> <0139fba8-07a6-4e95-b776-ea54981b26ea at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>> On 2/5/2024 5:56 PM, Barry Jacobson wrote:
>> Really requires 100% concentration.
>
> Sprints are by far the most challenging things I do. And the great ops
> manage SO2R, working between two bands! N5KO urged me to try that when I
> was 10 years younger. I did, nearly went nuts doing it. And as I got
> older, gave up one it.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:55:35 -0500
> From: "Tim Duffy" <k3lr at k3lr.com>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Course Outline posted for 2024 Dayton CTU
> Message-ID: <01af01da590c$8ae9f900$a0bdeb00$@k3lr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The 2024 Course Outline and Professor Bios are now posted on the Contest
> University website.
>
>
>
> https://www.contestuniversity.com/course-outline/
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Tim K3LR
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 254, Issue 6
> ******************************************
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list