Topband: Timor Leste report #10

[GEORGE WALLNER]

Dietmar,
FT8: I share your understanding of the DXCC rules. Somebody must be there 
and do something to initiate the contact. That is how I see it, but 
realistically, if you can not tell the difference, how do you police it? 
While I don't agree with automated FT8 operation, at least the those using 
it today are honest about it. Invalidating their QSO-s will mean that in the 
future they will not declare when they are automated. I prefer honesty over 
perfection.

On CW I use the same standard as you have described. I take a note of  where 
I am not sure and later use that when receiving correction requests. If it 
is not on my "doubtful" list, and it is just one letter off, and everything 
else matches, it is probably a legit request. But, I received a log 
correction request, which had everything right and only one letter off, I 
corrected the call, and next day the real "owner" complained that his QSO 
has disappeared. 
Many 160 m contacts are marginal and we have to work hard at them. That is 
why it is more fun than FT8!
TKS for your efforts and 73,
George,
AA7JV
K8R and KH8/AA7JV

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 04:39:54 +0100 Dietmar Kasper  wrote:
>Dear Topbanders
>90% of the equipment is in the container. We still have 2 1/2 stations running (one without amp in phone only)
>the 160m antennas and beverages are still up and some simple wire verticals have been added to continue beeing
>QRV the next days and nights.
>
>It seems we are in rain season now. No afternoon without close thunderstorms and all the noise on the bands.
>Propagation is still poor however last night was a short window around 12:30 to work a few lucky W4´s.
>
>In the thunderstorm noise call sign logging is guessing. I am sure that I am not almost right with the call.
>I called a W4 for about 5 minutes and thought it was K4SV. At the end I was logging K4SV but I had the feeling
>that this station was not happy with that call and I may have it wrong ... as much as you can hear in the crashes...
>(QSO interpretation later)
>
>When it comes to the question if a QSO is a QSO or not there is no unique standard. Thanks to all for discussing
>the question about FT contacts that must be initiated by an operator. I feel that the discussion is still open
>and a solution accepted by the majority of topbanders is not there so far. It was clearly indicated that the
>station must be observed during the contacts so automated contacts do not count for DXCC. Still open is if the
>contacts must be initiated by the operator or just by software. Some said it is OK that the operator is still
>watching that everything goes well. In my opinion an operator (and ARRL clearly uses the word OPERATOR) is only
>an operator if HE OPERATES, means, a visitor cannot be an operator by just watching the traffic.
>So my personal conclusion is that every contact MUST BE INITIATED by an operator MANUALLY - like in old days
>before MSHV software. I have the feeling that this cn start a revolution in DXpeditions of today because I FEEL AND KNOW that most DXpeds are running FT contacts unintended and uninitiated however nobody has prove of
>it as long as the DXped guys state that they are work in strict order of DXCC rules - do they ? what do you think :-) ?
>
>Also in CW mode its interesting to define if a QSO is a QSO. A QSO is not just happen that one operator calls
>and the DXped picks him up and give him a report. Station must hear that the call was given correct and the report
>is for him and he has to answer without delay. Even then QSO is not sure as long as both partners have not confirmed
>the contact by TU. Very often on topband QSB has prevented a QSO to finish.
>
>However this is a hobby and rules give room for interpretation. One station told me that I worked him 3 times
>but logged his call wrong so he does not define this contacts as good. He wrote: "at the 3rd time you came close
>to my call but it still was wrong so I continue trying next nights". This is a pretty high QSO standard!
>
>I am not so strict. I know that under this hard QRN situation call errors happen and I will have contacts wrong for sure.
>I still log it even I know it may be wrong but there is no penalty in DXpedition compared to a contest
>If a station gives me proof that it was HIS CONTACT by telling me the wrong call, his call, the date+time and the
>exact QRG he transmitted - we might correct his call sign, as long as the noted call in log is not requested by another
>station. However his call must be close to the logged call, mostly wrong just by one letter.
>I wonder if topband community agrees with me or not.
>These are some "contacts once in a liftime" so I do not want to make it harder as neccessary.
>
>Long writing, sorry for that. I hope it is still interesting for you readers. Topband is a very serious part of the
>hobby and who else as the topbanders should define the standards of a GOOD QSO.
>I do not want to create confrontation and bad discussions but I think its essential to think about QSO rules for us.
>
>more to follow
>73 Dietmar
>
>_________________
>Searchable Archives: 
>http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> - Topband Reflector
>