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

[Bob Henderson]

Hi Don and all

This isn't simply an IOTA phenomena,  I have noticed its creeping effect
upon several events.

I believe the introduction of a rule legislating for ID frequency at say 3
Q max or whatever deemed appropriate could work.  Here's why:

1.  Infractions would be publicly aired and verifiable beyond doubt.
2.  SDR referee technology could make the odds of getting caught high.
3.  Participants observing such an infraction only need report frequency
and time to make discovery & verification a breeze.

I believe a significant perceived risk of sanction should be enough to
discourage the wayward.

I hope RSGB CC will give this consideration.

Bob, 5B4AGN

On 31 July 2012 07:25, Don Beattie <g3ozf at btinternet.com> wrote:

> Agree your comments about ident, Bob. Strangely this was the first year I
> can remember it being a problem. I always wait for a call, never relying on
> a cluster spot, and found a number of broken spots this year for those not
> indenting. So your comment about who wins is spot-on.
>
> The issue with any rule is, of course, who checks the offenders and takes
> action ?  Whereas skimmer spots can be used to spot CW sub-band violations,
> it won't help find non-id'ers.
>
> But a worrying trend.
>
> 73
>
> Don, G3BJ / G5W
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 31 Jul 2012, at 06:26, 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
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>