After asking YO2BP/P on YO/WC-078 on 30m CW today to repeat my report an operator who was 599 with me, passed on the YO2BP report to me loud and clear…thank you very much whoever you are!!
NIL QSO for me then… fortunately I called Zoli 5 minutes later and got a fresh report and completed the QSO in the correct manner.
Whoever it is who is doing this please STOP DOING IT. You must realise that the contact must take place between the two stations directly,
Activator > Chaser
AND NOT
Activator > Chaser > Chaser
Whoever this is you are acting as a manual repeater. I’m sorry to say this whoever you are, but in my opinion your style of operating falls well below the required standard for SOTA.
The culprit(s) who pass on the signal report may be waiting in the pile up for a QSO, and you are holding up their chance to grab a QSO themselves, so to speed up the process they offer this unwelcome and unethical service. Presumably if someone did the same for them they would log the relayed report!
I think this is another case where the offending callsigns should be passed on (in private) to the MT so they can take action against repeat offenders.
The MT cannot be all things to all people. I really wouldn’t want the MT to be charged with policing all on-air operating styles! The “phantom contact” / “ghost QSO” was an important thing to deal with, but I think most things can be dealt with within the community without referring to MT.
So if you know who is doing this (and Phil said he didn’t in this case), then look them up on QRZ and send them an email. You’ll probably get a polite and appreciative response.
Things improve and the MT has not had to intervene - result!
So if you know who is doing this (and Phil said he didn’t in this case)
I suspect there’s something to be said for making it clear over the air at the time that their “assistance” was not wanted. Not exactly sure how to word that clarification so it’s suitable for transmission, though…
I have reported several situations to Brian G8ADD (MT Member) over the last couple of years. I know some action must have been taken - maybe they were e-mailed. As a result a few operators have either inproved their operating practice or in one case after several complaints were made the chaser concerned has never been heard on the SOTA freqs again.
In the case of the operators who try to help by relaying reports they never give their callsigns and can’t be identified which is why by bringing this issue up on the reflector may help them them realise that they should not do this.
For Rick - I did try to make this point at the time by sending NIL QSO RST PASSED ON. The only clue I had was that an OE station with the same signal strength and fist called Zoli just after me and completed a QSO, but I would not like to accuse that operator as no callsign was given when the relay took place.
Phil, instead of abandoning the QSO, tell the other station that a lid has invalidated the contact and ask him to give you a different report. If he was giving you a 5 and seven, he could change it to, say, five and six. Only the five part counts, anyway, the second digit is either a meter reading which is probably uncalibrated, or by ear and that is also uncalibrated. The important thing is that whatever report you are given is copied by you!
With weak signals from the QRP station on the summit I don’t like trying to ask questions and hold the operator up,. Yes, it is easier in SSB but try getting that message across using Morse, not easy.
So what I did today, which is preferable in my opinion, was to wait until YO2BP had worked the pile up down to next to nothing (it took Zoli about 5 QSOs - I sat back and monitored) I then called again and started a fresh QSO with no interuption from our friend. That worked well for me today.
When activating I sometimes get called a second time. I usually provide a second QSO as the first could have been incomplete. Zoli obviously does the same. I was listening on frequency when you were “helped” Phil. Unfortunately my noise level was S8 so no chance of a contact for me.
Your approach is a good one and the less stressful route but the relayer may have achieved his aim of getting up the list faster, thereby being encouraged to continue this habit.
The relayers are IMO of three types; #1 Helpers ignorant of protocol. #2 Impatient selfish QSO chasers keen to get you out of the way. #3 Malicious jealous sick people bent on causing you trouble.
#1 Can be educated and are mostly keen to learn and comply and are embarrassed that their well meaning acts were not appreciated.
#2 Hard to deal with. They will most likely ignore a request to desist. These are the people who after sitting behind you on the highway for a hundred metres or so speed past you on the right only to brake heavily when in front so they can immediately turn left. They belong to the “me” generation whatever their age.
A knock on their door followed by a robust ticking off by three large hairy men might work.
#3 Those of us who voice opinions or hold an office in an organisation or otherwise lift our head over the parapet are going to gather a small dedicated following of these people. They respond to requests to cease their interjections and “help” by maniacal laughter and “tuning up” on the frequency. Apart from a knock on the door by three large hairy psychiatrists in white coats there is little than can be done other than ignore them and either press on or take your approach Phil.
It’s a general problem not peculiar to SOTA but is more visible because of the very patient and polite behaviour of 99.5% of chasers.
I am grateful to all the activators and chasers who have been persistent and patient in exchanging reports when conditions were at best marginal, even when there was a waiting queue of stronger stations.
We as a body of amateurs rather than the MT need to deal with this.
The “Phil solution” or "NO QSP TU, RPT AGN PSE? are the only responses I can think of at present.
I’ve heard it happen on phone, when it was explained to the offending ham he was most apologetic, he “was only trying to help.” And that’s it, really. Not stupidity, not malice, just a human eagerness to be helpful. I sometimes wonder why a report that is often routine and meaningless is emphasised in the rules when as far as the database is concerned it is redundant information. It adds nothing, a successful exchange of calls establishes that contact has been made, a meaningless report that will never be checked isn’t even belt-and-braces, is it?
You can glean the call from many places other than off-air Brian and so people want to exchange some pseudo-random bit of information for their own satisfaction that it was a good QSO. Some people log QSOs when they couldn’t hear the other end and were guessing at the responses. I like to be sure it was good and in my log there will be comments such as “good QSO?”. If there are more than 4 QSOs I’m happy to include the dubious ones. If I had 3 good QSOs and 1 dubious one I would push hard for one more QSO that was definitely kosher before I packed up.
You’re right, most people relaying reports do so without realising why it’s frowned upon. It’s only a small percentage who do so for selfish / mischievous reasons. As long as we all try to make everyone’s QSOs better and make operators (both chaser and activator) act better then we all win and the MT doesn’t have to get involved.
It never used to. I think it is a relatively recent clarification in the GR. I’m sure it only used specify a “two-way exchange including callsigns” for chasers, but I could be wrong. No such requirement has ever been put on the activator IIRC.
If activating on 2m FM and working local stations, fully quietening, then formal signal reports are unnecessary and it seems silly to have to remember to do that bit. I tend to agree Brian, a minimum two-way exchange of callsigns should be sufficient for all the reasons you state. That still, of course, would not preclude people from continuing to exchange signal reports in the traditional fashion as an “optional extra”, like exchanging names and QTHs. In fact I am sure most still would, but it should not hang over the likes of Phil as a technicality which could invalidate the QSO which had clearly taken place.
In other cases, exchanging reports can be most useful in establishing that you are in actual proper contact. We have seen the rise of the “Ghost QSOs” and more effort should be made to exchange some piece of random or unpredictable information in marginal contacts for the satisfaction of both operators.
Fair comment Tom about the Ghost reports and Phantom QSOs which occasionally take place. If I am activating and the callers timing is out when he returns his over to me I start to wonder if he is actually hearing my signals or just guessing when I have stopped transmitting.
If I am dubious about the QSO I usually give the operator 3 chances by sending again RST PSE ? and his callsign. If after 3 tries he cannot respond with the answer I don’t put the call in the log.
I think the analysis provided by Ron AX3AFW is bang on!
