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

[Peter Bowyer]

The problem is that non-IDing behaviour rewards the miscreant. Assuming
they're doing it to manage the number of callers (yep, I've done that. So
have most people), it works for the very reason that frustrates the callers
- people  wait before calling. The alternative behaviour for the callers is
to call regardless of knowing who they're calling - this would neutralise
the benefit to the running station but wouldn't have any benefit for anyone
else.

Peter G4MJS

On 31 July 2012 09:33, Mark Haynes <mark.haynes at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> I totally agree with Bob AGN and Don BJ. Not Id'ing is poor operating,
> whether it be in a contest or not. It encourages more errors in logs, and
> this is not good for anyone. It can be very frustrating for the unassisted
> op who comes accross a station but either have to wait 10 minutes for an ID
> or are maybe lucky enough to be there just at the right time. This is not a
> strategic operating style that should be allowed - it's just damn poor
> operating! Another thing it encourages is policeman on the freq asking for
> the call, something that again doesn't help anyone. It's the same with
> DXpedition pile ups - policeman are more likely to qrv with the lack of
> ID'ing.
>
> Paul, I have to disagree with you. You're assuming all the callers in the
> pile up know the call. But also what about the people that are patiently
> waiting for the call to be announced? I don't think it's fair, when other
> people in the same category as the poor op do it the right way and it's not
> recognised. How often do you think is reasonable to announce? I believe our
> licences say every 15 mins. A rare station could announce every 15 mins,
> and still have callers from those that are assisted (having seen it on the
> cluster/rbn). Is this right? Or is this against the spirit of our hobby /
> the contest? The latter gets my vote every time. Lack of ID'ing would
> frustrate people and potentially lose contesters, something none of us on
> this reflector should want.
>
> With a team of referees sweeping the bands observing those not announcing
> say every 3 QSOs would be easy.
>
> 73,
> Mark M0DXR
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com>
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 9:20
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Is it time for contest sponsors to introduce an
> ident rule?
>
> On 31/07/2012 09:07, Olof Lundberg wrote:
>
> > Yes, indeed poor style not to id at least every few calls whatever the
> size
> > of the pile-up.
>
> Wrong - given that all the callers already know
> your callsign (via the internet), there is no
> point in IDing unless you run out of callers.
> It's a contest - and faster is often better.
>
> As for the potential callers who move on because
> you're not IDing, that's their loss and, anyway,
> most of them will try again later.
>
> <snip>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Did you hear about the Olympian who turned up
> for the high jump carrying a pole?  He claimed
> it would encourage technology evolution, and
> prevent high jumping becoming a legacy event.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>