As a regular, lowly attractive callsign CQing guy, after a CQ, it, sometimes,
happens to have several simultaneous answers. In this case, I can suppose that
all the answerers know my callsign. Then, to minimise their waiting time, it
is logic to send only a TU without the callsign to invite the next one to
transmit.
An additional advantage to that is to give a luck to a weak station (that may
be a qrp or a new mult for me) to be heard, because the next local and strong
comers in the pile-up do not already knows my callsign and have to wait a few
more seconds before calling me, the time for me to put the weak callsign in the
log.
In another hand, to re-fill the pipe and to avoid waste of time to S&P guys
(including SO2R) , It is also logic to send the callsign as often as possible.
I think that a good trade-off is to send the callsign every 2 or 3 qso during
the multi callers situations.
It is true that some very busy (highly attractive callsigns) running stations
send their callsign only once every 10 to 15 qso, which is really abusing,
because they know that most of casual participants are using spotting. This
behaviour makes real S&P(including SO2R) guys angry.
To react to that, some, started to send some "?" thinking: "if he makes me
waste my time, I'll make him waste his time". The consequence of this reaction
is that a new hateful fashion has appeared for few months: Systematic "?"
senders.
This new sort of cop does not let you voluntary miss any sending of callsign
after the TU without sending a ''?". So bad, because while sending his "?",
the cop has jammed the weak caller to whom I was trying to give a luck by just
sending a TU, inviting him to transmit before the pack.
Conclusion : Systematic "?" senders : a side effect of the side effect of
spotting effect...
de Gilles, VE2TZT
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|