The 9K2ZZ method of dealing with this problem would appear to be
self-deafeating. (I'm not picking on Phil here but since 9K2ZZ was
mentioned specifically I thought I would respond)...
First, it takes time (albeit a few seconds) to work the offender.
Then you can't count the qso because it is not logged.
Ok, so now the offender loses credit plus penalty points for being
"not-in-log". He doesn't know why he (or she) is not in the log and
that he has perpetuated a poor operating procedure. So what does this
accomplish? Nothing learned, no improvement in future operating
practice. Nothing but wasted time and an act of spite. Seems kind of
pointless to me!
I hate taking time to "educate" the "last two letters" guys, but I don't
think that doing this 20 times in contest (I realize that I am NOT DX)
has every significantly affected my score. Perhaps I have even
contributed to an improvement in operating practice as some of these
guys actually remembered what I said and gave their full calls for the
rest of the contest? Seems like a positive and affirming thing to do
(and I get to count the qso) rather than a negative, time-wasting
practice.
When someone gives me the last two letter only, I ususally say something
like this:
Full calls only, QRZ?
I don't work stations that don't give their full call, QRZ?
Rarely do I have to repeat this. Usually on the next CQ or QRZ I get
the full call. Sometimes the station calling even says "Sorry". I
think most guys get the message and don't mean to create problems for
other contest operators.
This is only my opinion, but seems to me like it is a better idea to
educate and encourage good operating practice than to "withhold the
information" to the uninformed and then punish him for not knowing.
73
Bob KQ2M
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|