RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] CQWW exchange

To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQWW exchange
From: David Wilburn <dave.wilburn@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:10:56 -0400
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
One piece that I forgot to mention, that really made the contest for 
me, and is 90% of why I will be back.  At one point I did not clear 
the buffers when I did not complete a QSO, and sent a French call in 
the exchange with a W call.  I keyed up and stated, "Sorry about the 
call, I have your call correct, just made a mistake".  To which he 
replied, "No worries, nothing I haven't already done 6 times tonight". 
  To which I had a big (much needed) belly laugh.

There were several instances like that.  I distinctly noticed a 
willingness to take a moment and bring in the human element.  This was 
capped off when I got to work Phil (KL8DX) who helped me get into 
RTTY.  A very pleasant exchange occurred, no one transmitted over him 
trying to get Alaska.

I did notice some idiot stations out there, transmitting a lot more 
than they should, making it harder for all.  But I came away from this 
event very impressed with RTTY and its operators.  Hats off to you 
gentlemen.

David Wilburn
NM4M
http://www.nm4m.com




Roger Cooke wrote:
> Hi.
> 
>   I have lost some faith in contest exchanges. With the "joy" of modern 
> technology, comes a major reduction in the skill of the operator. In the old 
> days ( during the war! ) RTTY was a slower process admittedly, but the 
> operator had to copy every exchange CORRECTLY. Now, for example, the 599 is
> completely redundant, meaningless use of 3 characters. Even the zone is the 
> same, completely redundant, as most loggers put it in the box before it's 
> given anyway! 
> 
>   OK, so I'm moaning. There is a point however. The operator still has to 
> copy the CALL SIGN plus the AREA code ( NY, NJ etc., )  and although I did  
> not make that many Q's, it really was amazing how many stations did not stay 
> around for confirmation OR, more importantly, a request for a repeat of 
> either the call or exchange. Now in the quest for more speed, leaving out 
> commas and periods etc., we have lost the plot! Those stations I wanted to 
> request a repeat from will not be in my log. Tough, but they should have 
> spent a few more seconds getting the QSO completed. There are also times when 
> no call signs are used, leading to mix-ups with two or more stations on the 
> freq at the same time. This can be eradicated by a better use of macros of 
> course.
> 
>   Personally, I would like to see a more erudite and possibly dynamic 
> exchange. This would enforce a little more accuracy at both ends and lead to 
> a more convincing contact. It would also help to dispense some of the 
> antagonism and criticism from the opponents of contests in that we would not 
> have the usual comment "Oh, contests, yes you are 5 and 9 but I missed your 
> call and my report". 
> 
>   I do like contests of course, and take part in numerous ones during the 
> year, so I am not one of the anti brigade. However I would be interesed in 
> other people's comments
> 
> Regards from Roger, G3LDI
> Swardeston, Norfolk.
> 
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>