[RTTY] Pet Peeves

[Ed Muns]

My perception of "pet peeves" in RTTY contesting is informed by (1)
maximizing my score, (2) understanding that contesting is a team sport, (3)
encouraging contest participation, and (4) trying to keep contesting fun.

In most contests my score is based on the number of QSOs and multipliers
that are accurately logged.  Speed and accuracy are a trade-off for
maximizing score.  To maximize speed I send call signs (mine and theirs) and
exchange elements just once.  To maximize accuracy I decide on a QSO-by-QSO
basis whether unsolicited repeating any of this information is worth the
time.  (Repetition also benefits speed if it eliminates time spent by the
other station requesting a repeat.  Or worse, the other station doesn't log
the QSO because they didn't copy your information.)  During the course of
the contest period, I dynamically decide whether I duplicate sent info or
not.  95% of the time, I send information just once.

Another advantage of the default transmission being non-repetitive is that
it conveys to everyone listening that I am trying to make quick QSOs.
Hopefully, this influences others to strike the same balance.  Always
sending repetitive information, whether it is call signs or exchange
elements, conveys that speed is much less important than accuracy.

The exception is that in the RTTY mode only (not CW or SSB), I always send
serial numbers twice.  This is because the other station is totally reliant
on a decoder rather than their ears/brain.  On CW and SSB, we are able to
better judge the quality of the copy, make a best guess on marginal copy and
decide whether we need to request a repeat.  Relying on a decoder and the
headphone audio we're much less certain about the integrity of the print.
Seeing it twice the same way gives us high confidence.  In this case only, I
feel the time spent to always send serial numbers twice is a better
trade-off with speed.

Contesting is a Team Sport

Radiosport is unique in that competitors must cooperate to score points.
For a few seconds competitors become team mates for the purpose of achieving
a valid QSO each can successfully log.  Maximizing teamwork on the QSO is
rewarded by both competitors adding to their score.  

In this context, pet peeves can be strange animals.  On the one hand, we
want our temporary team mate (our QSO partner) to strike the same balance
between accuracy and speed as ourselves.  We'd like them to send exchange
elements only once if we get clean copy but twice when information is
garbled due to QRN, QSB or QRM.  We'd like them to follow the conventional
rhythm and order of QSO messages.  On the other hand, a slow or annoying QSO
may be better than no QSO.

Pet peeves are seldom the result of my QSO partner deliberately trying to
annoy me.  Their QSO behavior is what they think is best (or, an inadvertent
error), whether they are a serious contester or a casual participant.  In
either case, the way I operate can influence their future QSO behavior, if
it is a positive example.

I'm glad when a casual operator teams up with me to add another QSO to my
contest log.  More contest participants is a good thing!  If it takes longer
than needed or requires me to break rhythm, then it is usually a good
trade-off.  Moreover, working through a non-ideal QSO has the longer-term
value of welcoming the "errant" QSO partner to the contest and training, by
my operating behavior, how to efficiently make contest QSOs.

Contesting should be fun!