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

[andyphewitt]

Mark,
I agree 100%. 

Rather than have a team of referees looking for law breakers, modern log
checking programs pick up busted call and highlight them. It would be quite
easy to penalise both sides of a qso for busted calls. It could also show
which run stations have the most busted calls and penalise them. 

Even in day to day operating there are many obvious busted calls on the
clusters. 
73
Andy G3SVD


-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mark Haynes
Sent: 31 July 2012 09:33
To: UK-Contest
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Is it time for contest sponsors to introduce
anident rule?

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