k8bl@en.com wrote:
>So, are you saying I should be disqualified? I screwed up
>and quickly moved when I found out my error. Perhaps, the
>better idea would be to have the Contest Sponsor send a
>notice to the offender when they submit their log and inform
>them offically of the error. The notice could say that future
>violations will mean DQ'n since they are now on record as a
>known offender. Over a couple years, this could get things
>cleaned up fairly well, except for blunderers like myself
>who you'll never clean out totally.
>From what I saw later in the Contest, the major offenders are
>the Big Gun stations who may feel they're above rules they
>don't agree with or are too important to be trifled with.
1st of all, you're not on my "bad boys" list...I spent > 90% of
my time CQing (well above or below the window!) & so only a few
people are on my list, and nearly all of them are, as you say,
"big guns" who should and almost certainly do know better. The
published rules have said for years that CQing in the window
was grounds for disqualification (the fact that the "official"
rules were not published this year complicates things a little,
but not that much). I think the people who should be
disqualified, and I think it should start this year, are ones
who are reported by a significant number of folks who heard
them, and only in cases where the complainers provided to the
contest sponsors sufficient data (such as exact frequency &
time) to show that the complaint wasn't just being made up by
a jealous competitor.
A corollary of the DX window rule, one which I observed &
which should be observed by all S & P stations, is DO NOT WORK
STATIONS WHO ARE VIOLATING THIS RULE!!!!! If no one answers
them, they'll soon move on.
In years of high sunspot activity when the band is in bad shape
anyway, the DX window isn't such a big deal. But when sunspots
are down and the band is in world-class condition, as it has
been the last few weeks, this issue becomes VERY important,
which is why I think now is the time to deal with it. If that
means disqualifying a few of the big boys, so be it. If the
sponsors make a few high profile public examples, the problem
will go away in a hurry.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Alan Braun MD, NS0B/V31EV *Internet: albraun@socketis.net *
* Jefferson City, MO *Packet: NS0B@N0LBA.#cemo.mo.usa.noam *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>From patd@eskimo.com (Patrick Dayshaw) Mon Dec 4 07:13:53 1995
From: patd@eskimo.com (Patrick Dayshaw) (Patrick Dayshaw)
Subject: UNconfirmed calls (Long)
Message-ID: <199512040714.XAA12375@mail.eskimo.com>
>I don't mean to sound harsh, but long term soultion for folks having
>trouble copying callsigns is for them to improve their CW and
>contesting skills, rather than to ask everyone else to slow down all
>weekend. Our group would not have managed to get 7750 QSOs into the
>log (before dupes) if we had to tranmit at "least common denominator"
>speeds.
>
>My vote for best attitude goes to Martin Luther, VK5GN, who after
>being the SSB contesting beacon of Australia for the last 20 years
>has decided to take up CW contesting. His regular updates on this
>mailing list as to his progress should be an inspiration to us all
>(they are to me) to improve our own skills.
>
>--Trey, WN4KKN/6 (aka HC8N)
WA7VNI wrote ............
>>Yes, I see all the skill based insults that fly around here, but the
bottom >>line is the "big kids" need the "little kids" for points, so they
just have >>to adjust to the fact that the game includes some of us
"low-skilled types" >>rather than just the "always faultless pro's". It's
not like a foot race >>where it's just the runner and the track. Each QSO
is in fact, a team >>effort that includes two contestants who may be
competing against one >>another on one level, but for that single QSO they
are both on the same team >>and have the same goal, a VALID exchange.
If your comment is based in part on the above, let me clarify in case I left
you with the wrong impression......
VK5GN, is a fine example for us all Trey. I was in no way implying that
advancing ones skills is not THE PRIME FACTOR in all of this, it certainly
is. Personal operating skill is the one thing money can't buy, but
dedication and hard work can. I was responding to a question about "Bad
Q's" caused by incorrect calls AND why they occur. My point is simply that
some stations have better pileup/QSO management than others when dealing
with slower/less experienced operators. The issue is how the talented, high
speed, high rate operator deals with QSO's from operators that are less than
"world class", deserves consideration as one of the many factors that makes
a good operator. Guys like W9IOP and W4KFC somehow always seemed to have
IT. I guess I'm just trying to identify what IT is. Somehow I think its
more than just "raw speed".
I spend a lot of time waiting in pile-ups from my small station and get to
listen a lot to some of the best operators in the world. It's just that I
sometimes hear a big difference the stations that are more "user friendly"
than others.
As far as having to 'transmit at "least common denominator" speeds' I
wouldn't suggest that at all, I think it's more that the operator is
"flexible" when necessary, varying the speed/exchange to support The
Exchange rather than just blasting it out, at 40 wpm, one more time.
My question to W2UP (or any other high rate op), was do you want me to
verify your call "every time I think there is a chance of error" or not? Is
that an acceptable use of time in order to ensure a valid QSO? This a
question of basic "time vs value" only a high rate op and his/her logs can
answer. Having an understanding of what a high rate op would want me to do
in order to best support the rate, balanced with completing a valid QSO,
allows me to adjust my practices accordingly. Do you want to risk bad Q or
take the extra time to hear me send your call in situations where, based on
what you hear at your end, you might not think it would be needed?
Just trying to understand how it works.
73
Patrick, WA7VNI........ patd@eskimo.com
|