[Fists] QRS

[W1EOF]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fists-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:fists-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Dan KB6NU
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 2:02 PM
> To: Fists
> Subject: Re: [Fists] QRS
>
>
> Let's not go overboard. It's lamentable that there are bad
> operators on the
> air, but FISTS should in no way become the "CW cops." Putting
> these kinds of
> measures into place would be the downfall of FISTS, and not make the bad
> operator any better.
>
> If another operator won't slow down for you, simply sign off with
> him or her
> and go find someone else to chat with. If someone is hogging
> 14.058, call CQ
> FISTS on 14.056 instead.
>
> FISTS should continue to stand for good operating practice and lead by
> example. Being punitive is a waste of time and energy.
>
> 73!
>
> Dan KB6NU
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> President, ARROW Comm. Assn. (www.w8pgw.org)
> ARRL MI Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
> CW Geek (FISTS #9342)
> Read my ham radio blog at www.blurty.com/~kb6nu
>

It's always been considered proper protocol to slow down to the slowest
operator in a QSO. That's the considerate thing to do. If there is some
misunderstanding and you want to speed-up ask him so. That's pretty simple.

You can't assume that if someone calls you (they recognized your call) that
they can copy that fast. I can always get an ops call at a fast speed
because the call is repeated (both ends) and is at a point in the text where
I know it's location. The calls are the easiest thing to recognize out of a
QSO.

Rather than monitor bad FIST behavior, why not have a registry where good
behavior can be monitored. If you have a particularly good QSO with a FISTS
op, then nominate him/her for a "Hall of Fame." Every year one FISTS op
(with the most votes) would get inducted in. At least that rewards good
behavior rather than (As Dan says) try to be a "CW cop" which I think is a
bad idea.

"Accuracy transends Speed" to me means that the #1 objective is to send
perfect CW. I have not reached perfection at this point in life, but I'm
working on it. I also am working on increasing my speed, but not at the
sacrifice of accuracy.

That's my $.02  :-)

73,

Mark W1EOF

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <YoDoc at aol.com>
> To: <fists at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 11:27 AM
> Subject: [Fists] QRS
>
>
> > Having just read the message quoted below, I recall many encounters
> on-the-air with CW operators, all FISTS members, who failed to
> QRS or QRS to
> my speed -- usually slowing down to twice the speed at which I
> was sending.
> Such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable for members of an organization
> which has, as it's motto -- "Accuracy transcends speed."  I cannot copy
> accurately when half the characters received fly by me at a rate
> way beyond
> my comprehension.
> >
> > I've been an avid CW operator throughout my ham "career," but am now
> primarily a digital mode operator.  I still enjoy CW QSO's, but due to the
> "diversity" of my amateur radio pursuits, I have not developed
> copying speed
> beyond 25 WPM, max.  I have had a lot of QSO's with OM's who started out
> clicking away at 50 WPM, but very gladly slowed to my speed,
> whatever it was
> at the time.  Lately, nobody seems to want to do that anymore.
> I've had one
> OM try to explain it away be saying he is "pushing me to try to copy
> faster."  Thanks, OM, but I'll push myself be SENDING faster so
> the other OM
> I'm working can match MY speed, as should be the case.  The
> priority should
> always be given to the slowest operator, at least within the FISTS
> organization.
> >
> > I like the idea of setting up a system for booting people out of FISTS
> upon receipt of "x" number of complaints.  Of course, this would
> require at
> least two or more complaints on the same operator.  I'd also like to
> sanction other FISTS transgressions like "hogging" the .058 frequencies
> (especially 14.058) and run-together sending at ANY speed.
> >
> > I also like the idea of requiring future FISTS members to be "nominated"
> for membership.  This would require working on-the-air and receiving
> nominations from at least 3 FISTS members.  Let's see some more discussion
> of this concept.
> >
> > 73 de Larry, K3LT
> > FISTS 2008
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >A FISTS member ought to not only know better than for be an arrogant CW
> op,
> > >a FISTS member should strive to set an example of what a good
> op is like.
> > >Perhaps a change in bylaws is in order. How about if a set
> number of bad
> > >reports come in, dropping a member from FISTS?
> > >
> > >Think about this: IF A NOMINATION FOR FISTS WERE REQUIRED, WOULD ANYONE
> > >NOMINATE YOU?
> > >
> > >A person shouldn't even have to ask for someone to slow down! A good
> > >operator should do that automatically. Arrogance (by refusing to slow
> down)
> > >is not the sign of a good operator.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fists mailing list
> > Fists at mailman.qth.net
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fists mailing list
> Fists at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists