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

[Don Field]

Not to speak for the Contest Cttee as a whole, and I don't see any
possibility of a "team of referees sweeping the bands" as per one
suggestion.

But one observation, having just returned from OJ0 (great time, with G3TXF,
SM0W and SM0T). We didn't have a reliable Internet there for mult chasing
(so our mult total is actually quite modest) but a number of stations
almost certainly lost a potential EU-053 mult by not identifying as we
didn't have time to hang around, so there is a downside to them in that
respect. Interestingly, there is another issue in IOTA which is, when
someone is CQing from an IOTA, they need to make that clear - our mult
station didn't always know whether to call, say, a DL, not knowing whether
it was a new mult or a non-island station. So not just IDing in that case,
but mentioning the IOTA reference, might have gained them points too!

FWIW.

Don G3XTT

On 31 July 2012 09:46, Bob Henderson <bob at 5b4agn.net> wrote:

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