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

[Peter Bowyer]

That introduces a new fun way to reduce an opponent's score - repeatedly
spot them on the cluster but bust their call. This causes hundreds of
people to dup them, and gets them lots of busted call penalties. I don't
think we want to do that.

Peter G4MJS

On 31 July 2012 09:51, andyphewitt <andyphewitt at btopenworld.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>