CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 254, Issue 6 (Ack issue)

To: NM5M <nm5meric@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 254, Issue 6 (Ack issue)
From: Jack Brindle via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Jack Brindle <jackbrindle@me.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 11:37:56 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
It is easier than that. The CQ station sends their exchange first, giving the 
calling station a chance to request fills if needed. So we know the calling 
station will get the exchange. The problem then is that the CQ station may not 
get the calling station’s exchange. If that happens, there is no QSO and thus 
nothing to log. The calling station will get a NIL for the Q he logged. 

A double Q removal for NIL should be plenty of incentive, and we have that 
already.

73,
Jack, W6FB

> On Feb 6, 2024, at 11:22 AM, NM5M <nm5meric@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A solution to the ack issue is to make a QSO count (via log checking) only if 
> the info is correct on both sides.   
> 
> Those super competitive would be incentivized to be sure their info was 
> received correctly.
> 
> Eric NM5M 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>