[RTTY] The RTTY efficiency myth and SUPERFILL

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

/"//This selfish practice can easily be stamped out by working those 
individuals but not logging the QSO."/

If I were a contest adjudicator and detected this practice, I would DQ the operator (the one working a station but intentionally not logging the QSO). This violates the "good sportsmanship" aspect of contesting. If you don't like how the other station is operating, simply don't work him.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/17/2014 5:06 AM, Ian White wrote:
> W6SX wrote:
>
>>
>> Absolutely. Keep the TU.
>>
>> Indeed, TU is equivalent to QSL.
>>
>> CQ TEST W6SX W6SX CQ
>> P40X
>> P40X 599 03
>> W6SX 599
>> P40X TU W6SX CQ
>>
>> My TU to P40X says Thank You AND QSL, the contact is complete.
>>
>> Keep the TU.
>>
>
> Absolutely!
>
> A QSO is not complete until BOTH stations have received an
> acknowledgement of the information they have sent - which means that the
> run station must <send> that final acknowledgement before moving on to
> the next caller. Without it, the QSO is incomplete.
>
> Acknowledgement can take many different forms (examples from other modes
> include "R", "Roger", "QSL" or "Thank you"). We can debate about how
> many characters we wish to spend on this, but we always have to send
> something, so the bottom line is at least ONE character. Sending
> nothing, just moving on to the next caller, is the wrong side of that
> line.
>
> This practice of skipping the "ack" comes largely from individuals who
> feel that their QSO rate is more important than everyone else's
> uncertainty about having made a good QSO. This selfish practice can
> easily be stamped out by working those individuals but not logging the
> QSO.
>
>
> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>