[RTTY] Courtesy

Thu Oct 3 13:22:45 EDT 2013

Jeff,

I understand and agree with your assessment of overall contest exchange 
efficiency. I smile at the "GL" that is often included in the exchange. 
Fortunately, I am *not* counting on "Luck", whether good or bad, to 
fulfill my contest goal of achieving the maximum score possible within 
the time I have available to operate.

But that aside, CQWW solicited people to complete an online poll 
regarding their contest experiences and thoughts last spring. The 
results of that poll were posted a while back, here: 
http://cqww.com/blog/?p=150

The very first question was:

*Which is the best description of your operating interest in the CQ WW 
Contest?

*
Serious competitor trying to win a certificate or plaque:
1675 - 31.6%
Part time operator trying for the highest score possible
1831 - 34.6%
Chasing contacts for awards:
546 - 10.3%
Having fun and giving points to other:
1023 - 19.3%
Other:
217 - 4.1%
Total
5292 - 100%

I suspect most of the fellows on this reflector fall into one of the 
first two responses. But when you total the last three categories, 
one-third of the operators in your log are less likely to know or care 
about contest exchange efficiency.

As someone stated before, I am not overly concerned with making a 
contact in a 'less than efficient' manner when that QSO will be 
multiplied by the number of multipliers in my log. I have been known to 
hit the Ctrl+K combination and type a personal response from time to 
time... most often to a friend who I know or a station who is obviously 
not in the league of WØYK, or AA5AU, or K3LR, or K9CT, or... etc.

I do believe it is good to discuss operator efficiencies in general and 
it will help those in the last 1/3 to move up into the 2/3 area when 
they choose to change their contesting focus.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 10/3/2013 11:26 AM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
> The format for the best exchange is pretty well fine-tuned.  And as 
> with the /QRP, the more stuff you put on the line, the more 
> unproductive it is.  GL is another example of that.  The direct cost 
> is in the time it takes to send the GL and the space.  Multiplied 
> times the number of QSO exchanges.  The indirect cost is present also, 
> for example a guy misprinting GL for something else in rough copy 
> times and needing a repeat, or waiting, or skipping you to move onto 
> the next guy causing you to miss a potential mult, etc.  So we have to 
> add in some more time wasted that would be hard to figure out but must 
> be present.
>
> This discussion thread on courtesy reminds me of the Pamplona bull 
> races. When it's go-time, guys there are focused on the task and there 
> is no time for pleasantries.  Nor should any be expected. It's a 
> serious activity. And people who are there needing the touchie-feelie 
> chit-chat would be well advised to stay off the streets when that 
> event is happening.  For guys who want to "try it" - then they should 
> respect the tradition enough to take a look at the way things are 
> normally done.  Penalties in the bull races are severe and immediate - 
> so runners are probably well motivated to prepare well.
>
> And while the penalty for not doing the RTTY exchange right does not 
> cause a sudden rise in calcuim content as in the bull run case, the 
> point is similar.  This kind of contest is needs to have maximum 
> efficiency in mind as a priority.  A key goal of the contest is the 
> maximum number of QSO in the allotted time, especially for those 
> running un-assisted.  So anything that digresses from that key goal 
> should properly be excluded.  And that includes unnecessary exchange 
> elements (e.g. GL), problem causing unnecessary data exchange elements 
> (e.g. /QRP) and confusion adding elements (e.g. DE when it's not your 
> state).
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Tom Magarelli
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 8:47 AM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Courtesy
>
> Following this courtesy on RTTY discussion line. I had the thought, would
> it be to much time and data
> not to only send TU but add GL to the courtesy response so it could
> be TU GL
> Just a thought.  Would like to hear the Groups thoughts TNX
> Thomas (aka Tom)
> WA2PNI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of W4GKM
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 8:55 AM
> To: john; rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Courtesy
>
> I go by Nick, but you can call me Nicholas or anything else, just as 
> long as
> you call me.  I appreciate all contacts.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: john
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 7:40 AM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Courtesy
>
> try "clyde",,, I go by john  w8wej
> On 10/3/2013 02:08, Tom Osborne wrote:
>> I know what  you mean Hank.  It grits me when someone sends 'Hi Thomas.'
>> I
>> never use that name.  73
>> Tom W7WHY
>>
>>
>> There is NOTHING I hate more than people who doesn't know me from
>> Adam, greeting me in a contest as Henry. Obviously, they don't know me
>> because the only one who ever called me Henry was my mother and then
>> only when she was mad.
>>
>> Artificial, imposed-by-rules, friendliness is worse than meaningless.
>> It's stupid.
>>
>> Artificial,
>> do-it-because-your-super-dooper-software-allows-you-to-do-it,
>> friendliness is worse than meaningless, It's stupid.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Hank, W6SX
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2014.0.4117 / Virus Database: 3604/6715 - Release Date:
>> 10/01/13
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>