I agree with those who are P-D off with bad IDing development.
Getting worse for sure and time has come to make a rule revision to enforce
better ID practices. The only thing that helps is unfortunately to make
clear punishment to those who are lazy enough not to ID. Debates here will
change nothing. Only penalties or point reductions will.
My 5 cents are: Add a new rule that demands ID at least every third QSO -
if not, Yellow Card.
It is so easy to both run high rates and to combine that with ID at
reasonable intervall. Poor ID practices indicate bad operating skills and
habits.
The poor ID station will for sure suffer from intentional interference by
strong stations asking them for CALL? ? etc I do not sit and wait
patiently tor a station to ID after 10 minutes, be sure. I will always
start asking him before calling to see if that is a new one or not. And I
will not give up until he IDs. Sorry for being a bit rude.
Clean up a bit in the ID mess and we will give Non-Assisted stations a
favour they deserve. To be Non-Assisted is hard enough and does not need
10 minute pauses to catch a call...
73 de RM2D @ RM5A, Mats
2013/11/26 Jeffrey Embry <jeffrey.embry@gmail.com>
> That's odd Ed,
>
> For the limited amount of time I was on (roughly 15 hours) I noticed a
> marked improvement in stations IDing. Of the three listed below, I VP2MMM
> IDed about every 3 to 4 QSOs, or at least was when I was listening. The
> others, I didn't hear. Since I run 100 watts to a long wire antenna and
> was 100% S & P, I have taken a bit of information that was passed on to me
> by K3ZO a few years back...that I am finally getting around to getting into
> my head. If there is no ID after 3 QSOs I move on...also, if I call 3
> times with no reply, then they aren't hearing me so I move on and come back
> to the station later. This big thing, is that I do believe IDing is
> getting much better overall.
>
> Folks that don't ID often have always been around (or have been since I
> started contesting in the lat 1980s). Whilst I think they should ID more
> often, I have learned to live with it. So long as they are following the
> ID rules that their version of the FCC requires, I am can deal with that.
> I do think that sometimes they do rely on DXclusters and what not to put
> their call out correctly. This year I did note some busted calls on the
> Cluster and I also fat fingered a couple myself...so listening is that much
> more important.
>
> Just my .02 cents for what it is worth (not much in reality).
>
> 73,
>
> Jeff
> K3OQ
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Edward Sawyer <SawyerEd@earthlink.net
> >wrote:
>
> > As usual, the frustration of stations not sending calls sets in during
> > contests. Is it worse, personally, I don't think so. Its been bad for
> at
> > least 5 years if not more. A few notables were VP2MMM, 9M4SM, 3DA0ET. A
> > couple of Chinese went literally 10 minutes as well but I don't recall
> > which
> > ones from the log and don't want to be wrong. To me its quite simple to
> > nip
> > this problem in the butt and its time we do it since reactions of "lets
> > just
> > make everyone assisted so it doesn't matter" are too easy. And that
> > doesn't
> > hold water since we are all verifying what we hear on the air instead of
> > trusting skimmer and packet right? So seriously, should it really matter
> > what category your running? What matters is the offending station is not
> > operating properly. Fix it directly, not indirectly.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2 fixes with immediate results in my opinion:
> >
> >
> >
> > Make it a DQ offense to be doing it constantly during a contest. Its all
> > recorded and we all hear them. Just DQ em and it stops. Say, not IDing
> at
> > least once a minute on a routine basis is grounds for a DQ. Presto,
> done.
> > Then DQ a couple the next year and its game over for that mess.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just require a call be sent in every "exchange" and call the "exchange"
> the
> > 5NN Zone, or the entry or exit of the exchange. So if someone CQ'd with
> a
> > call, no need to repeat, if its at the end as a "QRZ" type end both okay,
> > but no CQ and no end and its not okay. And require that BOTH stations
> are
> > accountable for the exchange to be valid. This will slow down the
> offender
> > to a call as the stations being worked will stop and ask for the call
> > before
> > sending the exchange often and the offender will quickly learn that its
> > faster to just send the call.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can we do one or the other? And stop using skimmer/packet as the
> potential
> > solution? Exactly how does that solve the problem so nicely on SSB
> anyway?
> > Just solve it at its source and lets be done with it.
> >
> >
> >
> > By the way, stations sounded very "clean" this year. Imagine that? Lets
> > continue this momentum on signing your call and enforcing it.
> >
> >
> >
> > 73 Ed N1UR
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Embry, K3OQ
> FM19nb
> ARCI #11643, FPQRP #-696,
> QRP-L # 67, NAQCC #25, ARS #1733
> AMSAT LM-2263
>
> --
> WWWDWOA?
> (What Would We Do Without Acronyms?)
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|