[UK-CONTEST] CQ WW CW GM4AFF SOSB 160 LP

[Stewart Rolfe]

 Stewart,  Agreed the 'default' TU/no-callsign ending from a dx station is wrong but I think we can use some common sense here. If I get called by a couple of stations while running I might well end the first with just TU 'cos I know there's another sitting there waiting. That's the limit for me though...a maximum of 1 before I give my call. I've been stung previously using GW6W when I suddenly got a whole string of dupes and a check on DxSummit later confirmed my suspicion that someone had spotted me as GW6GW which at that time featured in SCP files...and this despite me sending my call after each qso.   If I receive more than one dupe in a row I'll sit there and repeat my call 2 or 3 times and just hope the callers are actually reading the morse, forlorn hope perhaps? After sorting out key clicks the cluster would be next on my list....  I posted my SOSB/40 low power report on
 3830..... http://lists.contesting.com/archives//cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=3830&i=201111281930.pASJUd7L008289%40b41h.net  73,  Stewart, GW0ETF   
--- On Mon, 28/11/11, Stewart GM4AFF <stewart at gm4aff.net> wrote:

> Operating has 'gotten worser' than what it was. I see a few
> comments on 3830
> about stations failing to ID. I was going to mention this
> anyway, before I
> saw this trend. It looks like the default for a QSO ending
> now is TU, and if
> another station fails to call, then call CQ. This is not as
> it was, and is
> not helping anyone. It probably isn't even helping the
> idiots doing it, even
> though they may think their rate is perceived as being
> higher. Sadly, this
> type of operating means that a station can go for minutes
> without an ID. I
> have commented on this before, with regard to the IOTA
> contest, but I could
> see (even on 160m) that this was a big issue, and will
> destroy contesting as
> we know it. It's happening because most people calling the
> non-ID'er know,
> or think they know, the station's callsign, presumably
> gleaned from the
> cluster. I don't have a problem with the cluster myself,
> per se. However,
> the cluster is finally impacting the way we actually
> communicate. So next,
> we'll either have to have a rule that forces ID'ing, or
> we'll all have to
> use the cluster. Just wait and see if I'm wrong...