Re: [CQ-Contest] Don't we need to change the sprint protocol?

["Dennis Younker" <SunGodX@cox.net>]

Perhaps the penalty for QSOs not in the other station's log should be 
increased to something like five QSOs.  That would get the other station to 
wait long enough to hear the confirmation from the station he worked.
The station that initiated the QSO (and last to receive) is going to 
probably send a "dah" to confirm. If the station inheriting the freq doesn't 
hear it, he would then probably ask for a repeat confirmation.  If the guy 
he just worked didn't QSY yet, he'll get the repeat confirmation.  If he did 
move on, he won't and would probably remove the QSO from the log to avoid 
the hefty penalty.  The guy that moved on too quickly though would get the 
penalty instead.  (See the motivation for him to hang out a little bit 
longer?)

As you can see, it forces both stations to hang around on freq a few 
milliseconds longer. This might be okay to ensure fewer broken Q's but will 
also result in possibly slightly lower scores.

The rule makers will probably want to weigh how big a problem this is versus 
the impact before making a decision.  Personally, it's been years since I 
have been in the mid 200 Q's and up area (due to being in an HOA area 
now-arggh!) but I don't find this to be a huge problem for me.  It would be 
interesting to hear from others as to how big they perceive this to be.

--Dennis, NE6I

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Laney" <k4bai@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Don't we need to change the sprint protocol?


> Hello all:
>
> One very helpful thing to avoid the confusion as to acknowledging Sprint 
> QSOs would be if everyone possible used full QSK.  I know a number of very 
> good contest operators who do not like to use QSK, but they are losing out 
> on the opportunity to hear that station who sends a quick R or dit-dit at 
> the end of their Exchange, as well as the one who doubles with them or who 
> was actually calling someone else and calls again while they are 
> transmitting.
>
> I know it may be a distraction with SO2R and that may be a trade-off that 
> you make for SO2R, but I highly recommend that every CW contester use full 
> QSK whenever possible.  My doubtful Sprint exchanges or acknowledgements 
> have been significantly reduced since I got an Alpha 78 full QSK 
> amplifier.
>
> 73,
>
>
> John, K4BAI.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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