The practice of operating for prolonged periods without ID is bad whether done by DX-peditioners or contesters. For my money a prolonged period is more than three qsos, even when running at 200+/hr o
the receiver for a badly copied call and not the sender. It seems neither should there be a valid qso for either party. If all contests >supported a scheme in which both stations had to correctly lo
Igor I guess one event probably influenced me most in my thinking about penalties for badly copied calls. I won't name the individual concerned as my thoughts relate more to principle than personalit
Hi Bob: Well, he actually did you a favor. I almost never do that...I just work the dupe, log it, and move on. He gets a penalty for the previous busted call, and that takes me less time (in a CQWW)
Bob, Thanks for real life story to support ".. penalize both sides of the QSO.." approach. Although I agree, there is incentive for deliberate distortion of one's call sign when working competitor I
Bob Henderson wrote: Igor I guess one event probably influenced me most in my thinking about penalties for badly copied calls. I won't name the individual concerned as my thoughts relate more to prin
I got pinged once for a busted call when I worked a friend during a contest who was not in the contest. He heard me in the contest, answered my CQ, we chatted for a moment, I logged him and he gave m
an old adage to keep one honest, "never get in a fight you can't afford to loose" mike w7dra _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://l
K7ACZ added: I got pinged once for a busted call when I worked a friend during a contest who was not in the contest. He heard me in the contest, answered my CQ, we chatted for a moment, I logged him