>I have a question about working dupes. I looked up a couple of
>major contests and the rules that apply to them. I sure most of
>you know them already, but I put them here for clarity. These rules
>are copied from the 1998 rules as copied from the LA9HW contest
>calendar:
snip. . .
>These incorrect call/bad logging penalties are becoming more
>common (it is about time, IMHO). If you have a broken call in your
>log (for whatever reason), and as a result you call the station again,
>would it not be best if that station told you that you worked before
>at whatever time or contact # xyz? Now you can correct your log
>and it will not have a busted call in it. Why should working the call
>a second time and logging it as a dupe correct this error for
>anyone? It seems to me that a contester should want to fix an
>error in their log (during the contest!), so an obvious problem like a
>QSO B4 presents a perfect opportunity to do this.
>
>I do still tell a dupe that calls me that he/she is a dupe, and I give
>them the time or SN of the previous contact. After all, the
>computer puts the necessary information on the screen right in
>front of me. If the other party is interested in correcting the error, i'll
>work with him on it for the brief time it takes. If I lose another QSO
>because of this, so be it - I would rather have a correct entry in the
>log. After all, there is no guarantee that the reason someone
>shows up as a dupe in your log is that he/she got your call wrong,
>you may have miscopied a call yourself.
What if you (the CQer) are REALLY not in the other ops (the S&Per) log?
What if he was working someone else, or needed a fill on your exchange and
you went on to the next caller and he couldn't make you hear his request
for a fill, or if for any other reason he didn't feel the QSO was completed?
Since I follow the advice, repeatedly given by K3EST and the CQWW
committee, to not log a QSO unless you are sure it is complete in all
respects, I think this is often the reason why I am told QSO B4 (not
always, because I DO make mistakes).
If I copied a CQer's call sign wrong on the first QSO attempt and he says
QSO B4 and he works with me, I'm happy to make a correction that will avoid
a penalty for either of us.
However, I have rarely been able to convince an operator telling me QSO B4
that he truly is NOT in my log. And that he is not going to be unless we
complete the current QSO. If he is not in my log at all for the time/QSO
number he gives me (or if he just says QSO B4 with no attempt to make a
correction) I'm not going to add him. I move on, smiling to myself, knowing
that he will be penalized for refusing to admit that HE could have made an
error. Sadly, I have also lost a QSO.
It seems to me that just logging the dup and moving on saves both parties a
lot of time. And gives both ops credit for the QSO and avoids any possible
penalties for the running station. The calling station will then be the one
that is penalized if he miscopied the CQer's call on the first QSO attempt.
I think, as the S&Per, I have the opportunity and the responsibility to get
the call correct the first time around and should pay the penalty if I
don't.
In CQWW, with a penalty of loss of the QSO and three more for a NIL, if
just one (or more) in four of the dups that call a CQer does not have him
in their log the CQer breaks even (or comes out ahead).
It seems to me that the running station has much to gain and little to lose
by just logging dups. And the calling stations will pay the price for their
errors. On the rare occasions I am able to run, you won't hear QSO B4 from
me.
Jimmy, KG2AU <kg2au@stny.lrun.com>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|