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

[Olof Lundberg]

Yes, indeed poor style not to id at least every few calls whatever the size
of the pile-up.

I am however doubtful about the utility of yet another rule and the
associated complexities and arguments and proliferation of US-style amateur
lawyers.

Wouldn't it be much better to adjudicate based on full correct two-way
exchange? That would really separate the good operators from the sloppy in
the sense that a good operator ensures that what he says is also being
received. Require a correct two-way exchange for a good qso. Why not even
penalize busted calls in either direction - that would really hit the
sloppies.

We will never turn the clock back on cluster and RBN whatever Paul is
dreaming, nor would it be a good thing to stop technology evolution and
turn the hobby into a museum. It would be much better to reward good
operating and good use of technology through the scoring and adjudication
process.

73 Olof G0CKV

On 31 July 2012 07:26, Bob Henderson <bob at 5b4agn.net> wrote:

> The IOTA contest was great fun.  Conditions were fair and activity levels
> high.  Being a thoroughly inept phone contester I followed my usual path to
> the SOHP CW category.  With 20/20 hindsight my activity was weighted too
> heavily in favour of rate and not heavily enough in favour of mults.
> Still, as George 5B4AGC used to say, "If hindsight were foresight we'd all
> be a darn sight."
>
> Band,  Q,  IOTA
>
> 80,   108,  31
>
> 40,   395,  58
>
> 20,   801,  68
>
> 15,   823,  67
>
> 10,   313,  25
>
> Total, 2440,  249
>
> Score 4,183,200
>
> Many highlights and lots of slick operating.  A fun filled 24 hours.
> Though I did need to sleep in on Monday morning.
>
> The one real low light for me was what seems to be an increasing tendency
> for run stations to not bother to identify.  I have no doubt they must
> identify eventually but on at least a handful of occasions I waited while a
> run station made 10 or more Qs without one ID before I moved along
> frustrated.  I have no doubt this phenomena must be fuelled by cluster and
> RBN.  Stations calling must be doing so based upon data provided by one of
> these sources.  The run station happily works all comers presumably
> assuming that having called they must know who they are calling.  This is a
> mess.
>
> Calls reported on cluster and RBN are not necessarily correct.  Those
> taking them at face value may end up penalised for a busted call.  When the
> station doesn't identify perhaps those with a cluster or RBN sourced call
> conclude it will have to suffice but in doing so they continue to compound
> the issue.  The more callers one of these guys gets the less incentive he
> has to spend time sending his call.
>
> It might be argued that this is a heads I win, tales I win strategy for the
> cynical contester.  So long as he has callers he runs without ID leaving
> callers to rely on some 3rd party identification of the station they are
> working.  Who loses?  Well so far as I can tell only the callers who bust
> his call based on unreliable data.  The offender benefits large.
>
> 1.  Improvement in rate due to not having to "waste time" sending his call.
> 2   Penalties for those giving him points but busting his call.
>
> Surely it is time contest organisers took steps to address this
> malpractice?  A rule requiring a call be sent after max 3 Qs could do much
> to resolve this issue.
>
> My thanks to all for the Qs and to RSGB for the organisation of this great
> event.
>
> 73 Bob, 5B4AGN
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>