CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Frustration this weekend

To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Frustration this weekend
From: Ken McCormack <zl1aih@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:58:57 +1300
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Not IDing for *every* QSO has a long and less than honourable history.
Long before packet clusters were invented, DXpeditioners used this ploy,
together with 'split' in order to increase rate.
Rate meant more QSL cards, meaning more "green stamps" from DXers - DXCC and
other awards required *only* QSL cards in order to verify the QSO.

Some contesting DXpeditioners have adopted the "non-ID" practice to increase
rate and more importantly, to attempt to control 'pile-ups'.
 Fortunately, only a very small number (so far) have been arrogant enough to
use 'split' during a contest.

They know who they are and we know their call signs.

Please tell me whether you believe that a QSO is valid if only one call sign
is transmitted during a contest exchange.

73, Ken ZL1AIH
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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