[UK-CONTEST] Is it time for contest sponsors to introduce an ident rule?

[Roger Western]

Frequency of sending one's own call-sign is designed to maximise contest 
score. Licence conditions are irrelevant. My practice is pretty much that 
described by Bob below. My overall rule of thumb may be simpler to enact: 
send call-sign at least once per minute. Not sending your call can 
theoretically speed up the QSO rate but leaving it longer than a minute or 
so, in my experience, is self-defeating: it can lead to QRM on the frequency 
("Call?") and duplicate contacts. It is also 'unsportsmanlike'.
73 de Roger/G3SXW.
(CQ Contest Hall of Fame, Nr 30, May 1998).


-----Original Message----- 
From: Bob Henderson
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 2:35 PM
To: Peter Lock
Cc: UK Contest Reflector
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Is it time for contest sponsors to introduce an 
ident rule?

Peter

I see nothing to be gained by switching to private exchanges.  I have
therefore copied this reply to the reflector.

There is nothing at all wrong with being inexperienced.  We all start out
in that state.  Experience has to be accumulated, there is no short cut.
All are welcome in contests but there will be no reduction of events to the
lowest common denominator.  These are contests and contest technique is
what they are all about.

There is however something very wrong with making bold and defamatory
assertions.  You should realise that in doing so you have fundamentally
breached reflector etiquette.  That aside from straying into libel but let
us not dwell upon that.  I accept your apology but counsel you to be more
circumspect and indeed sure of your facts before you resort to this kind of
approach in future.

Apparently you didn't pay close attention to my earlier posts.

1.  I have not claimed that I ALWAYS ID after every QSO, though in the vast
majority of cases I do.  When I reduce ID frequency to every second Q this
is because I have a large pile waiting.  Reducing ID rate is to the
callers' advantage as well as to mine, as time to QSO is reduced.

2.  I have proposed a rule be adopted requiring ID after a maximum of 3
QSOs with the threat of sanction for non compliance.

3.  The rule I have proposed is consistent with what I believe to be good
operating practice and consistent with my own current practice, as I
pointed out.

There is no pot, kettle or black in reconciliation of my operating practice
with my proposal for regulation of ID rate.  You ought not be surprised I
take exception to your implication that my argument is hypocritical.

It has been suggested that we should all just conform to the letter of the
law as set out in our licenses.  You appear to share this view.  How will
this be enforced?  Currently there are some 340 entities on the DXCC list.
I don't know how many separate administrations are involved in the issue of
licenses but I would venture it likely well in excess of 100.  Who will
research license terms, liaise and seek enforcement with the authorities
concerned?    Why anyway, expend effort in shoring up an uneven field when
a simple rule addition can render that particular field flat?  Who is naive
enough to believe these authorities will be even remotely interested?

Around 20 years ago while still resident in the UK I had the opportunity to
discuss contest practice with an OFCOM official at what was then the HFC.
I enquired into their attitude to station ID rate during contests where the
rate of contact exchange could easily reach 4/min.  Did OFCOM really
require or expect a station operating in this scenario to ID after every
contact i.e 4 times per minute.  I was advised the license requirement on
ID was essentially there to provide for identification of sources of RF
interference or inappropriate behaviour and to facilitate station close
down where necessary.  It was suggested that a wait of 5 minutes for a
station to identify was really not a problem.

Well you might say, why isn't that reflected in the license terms?  The
answer is simply this: Legislating for changes to license terms is far from
trivial and enormously expensive.  How might this be justified where ample
enforcement discretion exists.

I am quite sure OFCOM and other licensing authorities are entirely
comfortable with contest and DXpedition custom and practice concerning ID
rate.  I know of no evidence to the contrary and this practice is not new.
What is new is the emergence of the blind pile driven by cluster and RBN.
This is what makes this long standing practice topical and worthy of
discussion and appropriate action.

Peter, I look forward to the day you will emerge as a top 10 contender.  My
advice is to keep on accumulating experience and make your own historic
performance your primary yard stick for measurement of success.  If you can
consistently advance on your prior achievements you will rise rapidly in
the ranks.

Like you, I despair at the difficulty in finding rational and constructive
discussion in this group.

73 Bob, 5B4AGN

On 1 August 2012 12:25, Peter Lock <doc.lock at tesco.net> wrote:

> Fine.  I admit to being inexperienced.  In any contest there will be
> relative novices who enjoy contests and are trying to improve their
> experience, and self-teaching and trying to learn best practice from the
> more experienced stations they come across.  However as you initiated this
> thread through your frustration at others failing to identify themselves
> but from my listening and now by your own admission you, too, fail
> sometimes to identify after every QSO, I thought it reasonable to raise 
> the
> point.  So I don’t think ‘entirely untrue’ is entirely accurate. (By the
> way, your speed of sending was never an issue with me)****
>
> ** **
>
> The nub of the matter is how often is often enough.  I do not know the
> terms of your licence, and other posts on the reflector have indicated the
> required frequency of identification can vary widely.  My licence states
> identify with every QSO.  So it takes me a few attempts to work out your
> callsign – and the time I get it and respond, you ID so I double with you
> and effectively miss your ID.  Variable ID might be worse than regular but
> infrequent ID, as the listening station might not be able to predict
> whether or not an ID is coming.  Ho hum. ****
>
> ** **
>
> A station like mine will never be any threat to your position in the final
> results, because of the limitations of my equipment and my inexperience,
> but I hope to change that.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> As you did bring the subject up, perhaps it would be a good idea to
> propose for serious debate the maximum number of QSOs that might be made
> before an ID is given, but I presume this would have to include the 
> various
> licencing authorities.  As we have seen, the reflector is no place for
> serious debate; threads just shrivel and die and no-one appears to take 
> any
> notice.****
>
> ** **
>
> This experience thing is seen in everyday life as well – I see many newly
> qualified drivers passing my house at under 30mph.  I see far more
> ‘experienced’ drivers passing by well over the speed limit, as if by their
> experience it does not apply to them, but woe betide me if I were to do so
> outside their home; the Neighbourhood Speed Watch would very quickly be
> sending my registration number to the police.  I see the thread has now
> died but I will post a public apology for stretching my observations.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Bob Henderson [mailto:bob.5b4agn at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 01 August 2012 02:50
> *To:* Peter Lock
> *Cc:* uk-contest at contesting.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [UK-CONTEST] Is it time for contest sponsors to introduce
> an ident rule?****
>
> ** **
>
> An interesting post.  I read all the way through wondering who in Cyprus
> might have been sending at 40 wpm and IDing only after 5 Qs.  I was
> astounded to find I am the accused.
>
>
> Your claim concerning my ID practice in IOTA is entirely untrue.
>
> At no time did I send at speeds above 34 wpm and then only when the pile
> was thick.  I mostly operated at 30 or 32 wpm dropping back to under 30 
> wpm
> when things got slow.  My operating routine has me ID after every QSO
> unless my instantaneous rate exceeds 3Q/min at which point I ID after 
> every
> 2nd Q until the rate drops.  Only if rate reaches 4Q/min will I ID after
> every 3rd Q.  During the whole of the IOTA contest there were no more than
> two or three periods, each lasting no more than 3 minutes each, in which 
> my
> ID count got to 3Q.
>
> At no time did I exceed 3Q between ID which at a 4Q/min rate makes the
> longest gap between ID 45 seconds.
>
> For now I will put down your erroneous observations to your inexperience
> but you should understand how unhappy I am you have chosen to undermine
> discussion and impugn my integrity in this way.
>
> Bob, 5B4AGN****
>
> On 31 July 2012 21:27, Peter Lock <doc.lock at tesco.net> wrote:****
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> Over the two days of IOTA operating as /P I had no access to the cluster
> and
> I never use it in contests anyway.  I heard a station sending AS4 as the
> IOTA reference, and wanted to work him, but like so many others, he only
> ID'd infrequently - perhaps every 5 calls, certainly not as bad as some.
> And when he did ID, it must have been at 40wpm so it took a few listens to
> make sure I had his call correct.
>
>
>
> Anyhow, we worked, I even managed to get through the pile up with my 5W,
> and
> I hope no busted calls or exchanges even with my hand sending. Excellent,
> another call and another multiplier in the log!
>
>
>
> A relative newcomer to amateur radio, I seem to recall my licence saying I
> had to send my call for every new contact, as has been mentioned here; the
> 15 minute rule I though applied to QSO with the same station or group of
> stations.  I now know some people do, some don't.  It is a bit like the 
> 80m
> CC contests where there seem to be so many running stations who all have
> the
> same suffix, which I copy as QRZ?, but who's to know if they are G3, G0 or
> some other prefix.  Ah, well, a guess sometimes works, but I do not really
> understand the point of the repeat sign, as they never repeat the QRZ. 
> But
> back to IOTA, with 5W I was never going to hold a run frequency or attract
> a
> pile-up, so there was no decision to make as to how often to send my
> callsign.
>
>
>
> I recollect this topic has been aired previously; like so many others on
> this reflector it will be subsumed by another (perhaps the meaningless 599
> report that gives rhythm to the exchange {HUH?}) and no decision will be
> forthcoming.  But at least that allows it to return to generate a lot more
> internet traffic.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the best idea would be to adhere more closely to the terms of the
> licence we have been issued, and give our call for each QSO. No doubt, no
> blaming an incorrect cluster spot for a busted QSO, no agonising over
> "should I send my callsign every 3rd, 5th or 10th QSO????"; just good old
> operating.
>
>
>
> Oh, the station I worked?  Did I not say?  Ah, P3F, I think.
>
>
>
> Pot, kettle, dark colour.
>
>
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> M0RYB****
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest****
>
> ** **
>
_______________________________________________
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest