DXpeditioners are getting fed-up….

Posted: November 7, 2015 in Uncategorized


There have been a series of internet posts lately that give me the impression that more and more Dxpeditioners are getting pretty fed up with the way in which many operators are conducting themselves in various pileups. Rick-K6VVA is leading his P5CW effort www.p5cw.com

Rick has announced his no dupe policy. He has also created software that will only log a station once. In addition, he has announced that Bully Lids” and stations that QRM his other activations may be black listed from getting a contact with P5CW at a later time.

Noted Dxpeditioner and recent CQ DX Hall of Fame inductee Vlad Bykov-UA4WHX has just completed his 2015 Russian Arctic Coast Expedition. He has posted the following:

“If you worked me same band – same mode – same island more than once and it was during the time when the pile-up was thick, it is almost 100% certain you will see no QSL 5 years from the time of the last extra QSO or not at all. No excuses considered or accepted. You put your needs on top of others’ basic one time QSO expectations – fine – pay the fee for being selfish. No joke. Any extra QSO (after QSO #1) puts you 5 years later on the confirmation. Say, I got you 3 times AS-027 14 cw – great – your QSL is coming October 2025”

The upcoming VK9WA Willis Island Dxpedition has announced on their website that “Stations that continually disrupt our attempts to Log specific stations or call into specific regions of the world risk the removal of all QSOs from the expedition Log without further notice”.

Each of these three methods described above are new and potentially controversial. In the case of the P5CW example, I think it is prudent to request that stations only call once, however with the implementation of software that will only accept one contact per call sign, there is the risk that someone may “pirate” a call sign and make the contact thereby preventing the owner of that call to make a contact where they actually know the date, time and band of the contact so that they can seek confirmation.

The approach outlined by Vlad-UA4WHX runs the risk of the same problem. Someone such as me could have made one contact and then perhaps someone that I have alienated tries to make a few more by pirating my call. If that were to occur, then I would essentially have to wait five years for a QSL card. So in both cases with the K6VVA approach and the UA4WHX approach, there is the potential that an innocent Dxer could be harmed by the pirating of their call. Pirating is a frequent problem as seen in last week’s 3B7FA operation from St. Brandon. It does happen.

The VK9WA  approach is also new. Typically when a Dxpedition operator learns that a certain station is calling out of turn or is making excessive “dupe” contacts, his call gets written down and that Dxer often finds himself getting ignored for a period of time by the Dxpedition. Sort of a “time out” approach. This is employed more and more often these days and is a topic that Dxpeditioners talk about when they get together. Most of the time, we are talking about the same stations that do this time and time again.

But to remove successful and valid contacts already made in the log as a threat to deter abusive or rude operating, well that just takes it to another level. I think that removing valid contacts from the log would cause issues with the ARRL DXCC desk and proper accreditation. I also suspect that Foundation, Association and Club sponsors may object to this approach. I am not sure if the VK9WA team will actually employ this method. It seems a bit drastic and like the other solutions described above it creates the potential where someone’s call sign could be used and abused and create long standing issues for the actual innocent owner of the call sign.

We are all trying to solve the problems of rude, abusive and poor operators in our pileups. The problem seems to becoming worse and worse. The solutions are all over the map from being potentially blacklisted in working P5CW, to waiting five years for your QSL confirmation, to having your contacts removed from the log by the Willis Island Dxpedition.

I don’t think any of these three solutions will really solve the problem and I feel that they create the potential for other problems for owners of calls that are used and abused.

What do you think?

  1. Jim says:

    All 3 solutions are fine, but the DX station needs to have an UP TO DATE CURRENT ONLINE LOG. The DX’ er sometimes needs to be sure he made the log, especially on ATNO’s.

    • Ron says:

      I understand the intent and reasoning between all three methods described. That said, I have some issues with the implementation.

      In an effort to curb lids and deliberate QRM and otherwise malicious operators, people who make an inadvertent or honest mistake get penalized, and penalized severely. Should someone who writes the wrong band down in their log, or forgets to change bands in their excitement, have to wait 5 years for a card — or not get one at all — because they screwed up and made a simple mistake?

      Worse… what happens when a call is busted (as can happen in huge pileups)? Within a 20 mile radius of my station is W3WH and W3WC. K3WW is very active as well, along with N2WN, W4WN, W5WN… you get the idea. Should I lose my chance at working P5, or have to wait years for my confirmation, because the operator mis heard or mis copied another station that’s one letter or number off?

      I really hope that there’s more to the policies described that will address concerns like this. Draconian edicts like these appear to be at face value do not solve the intended problems (the lids and malicious ops could care less), they merely create new ones.

      73, ron w3wn

  2. Gene says:


    If the DXer knew what he/she was doing they wouldn’t need the on-line log as a crutch.

    Can you please define ATNO??


  3. Robert H. Pusch WD8NVN says:

    What a mess….

  4. Jarrad Mitchell (XU7AGA / VK3HXT) says:

    Why not launch QRL.com, a wall of shame listing all the stations who’ve kept you busy by duping incessantly. It would be pretty easy; all DXPeditions would have to do is upload their logs, and each time a station duped they’d get listed. It could even form a few new awards; the LIDCC and the El Lid Cup. Once a station reaches 100 DXPedition Dupes, they get the LIDCC free of charge; its even better than the DXCC in that way. The station that logs the most dupes in a year gets the El Lid Cup.

  5. N7SMI says:

    To clarify our position for VK9WA, we’re not just going to remove folks for “ordinary behavior”. We are, however, giving notice that those who pervasively and repeatedly QRM or fail to follow instructions risk removal from the log. WE WILL NOT REWARD INTENTIONALLY RUDE BEHAVIOR!

    Now we will would not do so without at least a couple warnings on the air first. And we’re mindful of some that may use someone else’s call sign (though I’ve never heard of a legitimate case of this actually happening). This penalty would be reserved for the worst of the worst, and we have no qualms about implementing it on the deserving.

  6. Rick says:

    I understand the issues involved pretty well.

    I don’t like ANY of the approaches mentioned for the reasons already stated and because for smaller stations, the DX may not truly be a 59 but may be on the fringes (31). When that happens, if you don’t know for certain that your call was entered properly (QSB, mistakes happen too in the logging) and without an online log, an insurance contact attempt will likely be the result (just like in the old days before computers).

    Logging only ONCE? Is that EVER, is that band mode? If it is truly rare, I for one want not only the ATNO (All Time New One) contact, I want to ‘fill the card’ with every band mode I can. I may never have that chance again.

    Gene, that is a presumptuous statement. There are many levels of ability in a DXer, we all start somewhere and it isn’t one size fits all just as each station is different. The online log LOWERS the reasons for making redundant contacts; once in the log on that band/mode, move on to the next one giving others a fair shake. Instead of being a crutch, it is a valuable aid to the DX and the DXer alike. It reduces the pressure of the pileup unless the DXer is simply rude (tiny percentage).

    I would suggest that it is the best solution for the DX station to simply work them all without concern, concentrate on the moment, not the software, keep the Q rate as high as possible. If it becomes an OBVIOUS issue (pilot station input, or a software review of the logs NOT during the operating period) the DX can warn the DXer (you’re BUSTED!) or upon return create a six month upload delay of a QSL for that station (create a bad boy list).

    A 5 year wait is seriously flawed, the operator could lose the logs, die or any other calamity. The DXer then loses no matter if it was pirated, ignorant or rude behavior. It fails the fairness test.

    Ultimately education of the DXer is the correct answer (the ‘Elmer’s wanted’ sign is up, few answer), but implementation worldwide makes that highly unlikely. Insisting on the following the DX code of conduct is about as close as one can get. All you can really do is ask all stations to follow it.

    I see little wrong with a shame list **IF** one can show for CERTAIN that the redundant attempts were TRULY intentionally done by that station (not a pirate, not a close call). That may be hard to prove definitively as well so the chance of error makes it an unlikely tool of useful value.

    So just work them all and trust in the (diminishing) morality of the DXer while hoping they follow the conduct code. For the DX to be making threats serves no purpose at all and damages the rest of us. It also is very likely a good way to lose support of the DXpedition effort, including defraying costs.

  7. Gene says:


    I don’t think it’s presumptuous at all.

    For many years before there were on-line logs DXers honed their skills and got the rare ones with in many cases a single QSO. Insurance contacts on another band were acceptable, and even one on the needed band if it were a necessity.

    Today the technology is replacing operator skill and perseverance, the point; click and call gang are apparent in most any pile-up. They learned by listening to other unskilled operators and perpetuate the problem. Take the cluster away and let’s see what happens.

    I absolutely agree with you, just work’m and move on, dupes are a reality. Removing someone from the log is (to me) a risky proposition.

  8. Jarrad Mitchell (XU7AGA / VK3HXT) says:

    Rick, I’d suggest something like a threshold for such a list, eg, more than twice on a single band, or perhaps only listing the top 10. It would also be possible to automate some kind of apology system, whereby the user could remove themselves from the list. Sooner or later, they’d get sick of having to go to the website after every dxpedition, and modify their behavior.

    • Rick WA6NHC says:

      Jarrad: I like it, as the pirate would not likely continue using the same (not their) call from one DXpedition to another…. means the ‘branding’ of miscreants would not stick, unless they really were a screwup. I’d suggest 3 as the minimal threshold, sometimes insurance is required.

      In my (former) line of work, we called that educating the person (sometimes it involved a piece of lumber and some pain)… it was less paperwork than having them arrested. 😀

      Gene: I guess I’m still old school. I click and pounce, er, take advantage of the new aids, but I also look across the bands to see what’s there. Even now, if I’m unsure that the contact is valid I will do another try. Once I know I’m in the log (heard them clearly or see it in their log), I move to fill the card in other slots. The only exception is if the DX is calling CQ for more than 10 minutes without ANY response, I may give them a quick call to let them know where they’re being heard (propagation check) and to thank them for their efforts without delaying other contacts.

      With the crowds today and many less trained operators, I am fully convinced that online logs lighten the loads by taking some of the pressure and the dreaded insurance Q. Where we used to do insurance contacts routinely, there is little need for it now, once you know.

      Again, no one is stepping up to teach the new kids what is appropriate and what isn’t (a ‘feature’ of many societies today). Then you get into variances across cultural boundaries and it’s different all over again.

      I’d be happier too if operators would simply LISTEN to the DXpedition (up means UP, not on the calling frequency and other questionable practices). Things would go a LOT smoother.

      Rick wa6nhc

      • Jarrad Mitchell (XU7AGA / VK3HXT) says:

        I’m pretty much the same Rick. If I know I’ve made a good contact, I won’t call again, unless they are sitting their all alone calling CQ for ages. And generally, that only happens with special event stations (eg VI4AE2), rather than DX proper.

        When I’ve made dupes like that, the operator has almost always been willing to have a bit of a chat; I usually thank him and the team for their efforts, and usually I’ll spot them and let them know I’ve done so. Maybe its a little egotistical thinking they want to hear from me in that sort of way, but I’ve never upset anyone to the best of my knowledge, and would apologize personally if it turns out I had.

        On the occasions that I dupe for insurance, its almost always because someone has either QRM’d the DX stations reply, or propagation has faded to the point I couldn’t be sure they even had a partial copy of my call. I always make sure I’ve checked the log first (if there is sufficient time), and normally would only make another QSO if propagation is significantly better on another day.

        One of the reasons I’m for a ‘shame list’ as such is because Amateur radio has a long, successful history of the community upholding its own standards. Whilst there are laments regarding the declining quality of operators, a quick survey of the literature will show that such complaints have always been about.

        However, when you consider the general conduct of Hams, we do have pretty high standards. Yes, some may not give their call, or hide behind tones when QRMing, but 99% of the time we are exceedingly polite to one another, and refrain from using curse words and that sort of thing.

        That cannot be said about society in general; and the only reason I can think of for us continuing to have such standards is that is the example we all set on a daily basis. The fact of the matter is, if someone bought a radio, jumped on air, and started cussing like it was 11M, they wouldn’t make very many friends; they would be an outcast.

        And that’s why I think some form of shaming would work; we’re already a community that places a strong emphasis on conforming to standards in order to gain acceptance, and for the most part it works very successfully. Why not leverage that in this instance?

  9. Jarrad Mitchell (XU7AGA / VK3HXT) says:

    I would like to point out that what I have in mind is nothing like the ‘Lid List’ website; whilst I can appreciate the intended humor, the fact of the matter is the manner in which they present their grievances is far from professional.

    They often use language not becoming of a Ham, and it is presented anonymously. One of the core tenets of Ham radio is putting your name/call to your words & actions; time and time again its been shown that the minute people stop using their calls, poor behavior in general is let out off the chain.

    What I envisage is more like clublog, in that it would be statistics driven. The more dupes you make (above a standard threshold), the higher you are ranked; the worse you behave, the more visible your behavior becomes.

    It would be simple enough for DXPeditions to turn over their logs in full, and the website could automatically parse through them and pull out the excessive duplicates.

    Essentially the point of the website wouldn’t be to call people names, but to show them that their behavior falls outside of the norm. At that point, it would become their choice to change their operating practices, or accept their existing ones being displayed publicly.

    And I think that’s the critical point; it isn’t really becoming of a Ham to call another names, but we all engage in a public activity and I see no issue with making some aspects of that activity slightly more public.

    Surely, that is a better alternative than compromising ourselves by getting frustrated and calling out someone on air, delaying a QSL, or deleting logs.

    • 3z9dx,Dom says:

      Easiest and fastest way is not react for dupe! work them again ,don’t make any comments….it takes 3 to 5 sec per QSO…why you want to spend time for talking and talking for no reason…!?
      Some people don’t understand english well, some had difficulte RX condiditon ,some are not sure about qso…why to punish them ? just simply say ”QSO before” and is done.
      Why we judge people if we have no idea why they call second time ?
      There is a lot of situations when dupes are on each band for about 5687 times…then … we can have a lot of fun as N0UN has 🙂

      • n6pse says:

        Dom, yes I agree with you. It is most expedient for a DXpedition to just work dupes and in fact, most do and just quickly move on. As I see it, dupes are not the major problem. Out of turn callers and those that call over and over without listening are more of an issue.

  10. Jeff Davis says:

    I find it hilarious that DXpeditions are considering employing one of the tactics that Don Miller, W9WNV was severely chastised for five decades ago! But I understand the frustration and think this is simply a “sign” that the future of DXpeditioning is dim. Unless there is a technology solution forthcoming soon, I think these big DX operations from rare locales are going the way of the dinosaur.

  11. Phillip says:

    I do hope those intending to use this practice makes their intentions known at the DXpedition planning stages and informs all parties, the Dxer and the Sponsors .. I fear if this practice is used it will hurt all DXpeditions by less funding and sponsorship this will then make Dxpeditions far to expensive without funding etc and will make future DXpeditions less and less.. Get rid of the Clublog Leaderboard is the 1st step .. Why have a Dxpedition a contest !!! My personal view is if Dxpeditions go this way within a few years there will be no Dxpeditions due to funding and those who genuinely want to do a Dxpedition will struggle ..

  12. richardlboyd says:

    ATNO means “all time new one” (meaning any mode, any band I believe).

    There are definitely some problems with this approach. One, you don’t always hear the DX station coming back to you, due to fading, QRM, intentional jamming of the DX station’s frequency, etc. so you get into the log but don’t know “for sure for sure” that you did, so you have to keep trying until you get a bona fide, solid, two-way QSO. Second, the DX station can bust someone’s call and you get into the DX station’s log without having actually even called the DX station. I occasionally get QSOs from people who, I believe honestly, think they worked me, but I was not active in that time period. They probably worked someone else with a similar call to mine and got the call wrong. I remember when KE3QQ worked PA0LOU during a contest. I called PA0LOU soon after and he refused to work me, feeling he already had me (KE3Q). Repeated attempts to explain were unsuccessful. So, whether he logged KE3QQ as KE3Q or had me as KE3QQ, I don’t know. Either is possible.

  13. Mike Crownover says:

    When a dupe is logged, simply send “QSO B4”, then the caller knows there is no need to call again and move on to the next QSO. All of the proposed approaches above simply add another avenue of irritation and administration to the process, all time consuming. Also a black listed caller may be become a permanent QRM’er in the future. Paybacks are hell as they say.

    This is not a new problem, nor will it ever go away. The best approach is deal with it as quickly as possible on the air so you can fill the log with uniques. Announced intentions, club log, QSO B4, and similar approaches lend the problem to more self policing.

    Also unless the expedition is prepared to upload logs on a regular basis during the expedition, it’s hard to hold the caller to one QSO if the first one was in marginal conditions. Common sense should rein as opposed to a set of rules.

    • n6pse says:

      Mike, QSO B4 is appropriate in a contest setting, but in the case of a DXpedition most of us feel it is better and faster to just work and log the station again. There are various reasons why people dupe. Once in a while, QRM/DQRM or fading causes us to miss our reply and the DX moves on. In those cases it is prudent and acceptable to work him again to be sure you are in the log. Duping is annoying for a DXpedition but its not a major problem. Out of turn callers and DQRM is a much bigger issue for most DXpeditions.

    • Wayne Mills says:

      MIke, saying “QSO B4” is a not a solution. The DXpeditioner has absolutely NO WAY of knowing what is in the caller’s log. I am sure you can think of several scenarios where this can happen. If the DXer is computer-logging the callsign is likely not in his log — for whatever reason. The only satisfactory solution is to work “the dupe” and move on. Remember the whole point of a DXpedition is to get callsigns in the log correctly.

  14. Ken - LA7GIA says:

    I agree that deleting a valid QSO or not QSLing for 5-10 years doesn’t feel right. I don’t think duping is a huge problem and as discussed there can be many reasons to make an intentional or unintentional dupe. I think the main problem is the out of order callers, those who call constantly, those who do not listen to the DX op instructions, those who do do not respect partial calls, and even bad operating technique when you ARE called (i.e send your call twice, repeat your callsign even though the DX knows it etc). Not to mention tuner uppers and frequency cops of course. I think we have to start educating people, apparently many ops don’t know how to behave in a pile up.

  15. Kevin, K6TD says:

    It’s just about impossible to control poor operation, bad or rude behavior from the DXpedition side. The most one can do is – manage the pile up to the best of your skills. Some ops have better skills than others.

    This can only be addressed as a community. Elmering, 1-1, club sessions, talking at conventions.

    The personality and drive it takes to make it to a DXpedition is also the same personality that wants to control the pile up, in the interests of the DXpedition. The same personality gets frustrated when we can’t do that.

    So, let’a look to ourselves to make the situation better.

    73, KR

  16. Harry says:

    Taking a page from certain contests, how about reducing the LID’s band/mode Q’s by the number of (excessive) dupe Q’s? That could allow for a penalty to be imposed without eliminating all contacts.

  17. John says:

    I am in total agreement with Kevin K6TD especially his first paragraph – which is not to say he will be in agreement with me!

    Work ’em all, that’s what I say and it’s what I’ve done on DXpeditions in the past. Do your best and enjoy it. I can’t recall us ever being overwhelmed by dupes on any DXpedition to the extent being implied. No need for all these punitive actions and going out there in an angry state of mind before you even start! Just like in “real” life, certain people do have a sense of insecurity – in our hobby they make a dupe contact, so what?

    Unfortunately, it’s a fact that standards have declined to the lowest common denominator with the once meticulously correct and admired Japanese DXers becoming just like EU, Nowadays they also show no regard for the DXpedition’s request for a specific prefix or partial call. In the good old days it used to be a frustration when you got one letter wrong in a JA call and no one would come back to you 🙂 Oh for those times again!

    On a DXpedition you have to realise you are not “599” everywhere, the guy at the other end may be trying to copy your puny signal on his dipole with D-QRM in abundance. When there’s not an online log, should he be penalised for making an insurance contact? For example, this happened to me from the home QTH on 30m with TI9 not so long ago. I had heavy QRN and SSB intruders. It was a short window and I could not make an insurance contact so I had to sweat it out to see if I’d actually worked an ATNO. If I’d made that insurance contact, would it be right to make me wait 5 years for a QSL or scrub me from the log altogether. Ridiculous suggestions.

    I believe the operating standards on our bands are just a reflection of modern society and the “me, me, me” attitude that prevails. Good luck with changing it!

    73 – John – 9M6XRO


  18. Dave says:

    One of the problems really and nothing against them but there is a big majority of no code hams using keyboards and readers these days so on CW I can see lots of duping for that reason. A lot of ops don’t realize that if they just practice their call at slow and fast speed they wont need the code reader . Its that simple . Get your call memorized on cw and it doesn’t ,matter if its 5 or 45 WPM you will know they are coming back to you. As far as the dx stations practices its up to them to chose how they want to handle the situation. The Big Big problem here is the frequency COPS. These guys are just plain nuts and need professional help ! The time they spend screwing up the dx stations transmit frequency for someone (even me) forgetting to push the split button is ludicrous and totally uncalled for . Too bad they don’t do a simple mental check before they issue licenses. :).

  19. Ken says:

    When I was on CY0AA, Sable Island in 1996, we were #4 needed for Asia. My early AM cw sessions were Asia only requests since that was our only strong prop window during a 24 hour segment. We put out the notice LONG ahead of time regarding dupes (since they would all be on 20 cw/ssb). The solar flux numbers were HORRIBLE, so our options of other bands/modes was pretty well shot.

    We managed to get about 2K in Asian Q’s through, about 17% od the expedition total, which we felt good about. When we sorted the Q’s by call, we were SHOCKED !!! About 30% !!! of the Asian, especially JA Q’s were dupes. When cards began to pour in we were interested to hear the reasoning that we were given.

    Many times, we got “I thought I had you OK in the log, but the opportunity for this rare one drove me for a second confirmation call”. Kind of upsetting, but still undestandable when the opportunity only gives itself up every so many years. I, myself, do the same thing, but never more than two Q’s and that is a very seldom event ever.

    There are times that the QSO is clear and not in question. 99.9% that’s it. I have duped when the DX station is continually calling CQ with no takers. I will respond quickly that I will spot the activity and thank them for their efforts. BUT…it’s still a dupe, even though they are grateful to know that information.

    Through the years though, I have heard and gotten upset with a certain few jerks that do this just to “show off” their power and prowess. I didn’t have time to police the pileups but did call out the op with a “thanks for the third Q on 20, lets try another band” and for some strange reason never got a reply.

    Again, it’s your call, your expedition but I only give some insight what might cause dupes to occur. I would agree with multiple Q’s, more than 2, to be more punitive….IMHO

    Best 73 Ken WA8JOC/CY0AA

  20. Gary Hinson says:

    How about insisting that everybody pays $25 for every single QSO they made, in order to get even a single QSL? No, make that $250. $1m. Whatever. Oh come on, get real. This is a hobby, we are all human. All this talk of penalization is so negative and bitter. If working the pileups ceases to be fun, stop working the pileups – do something else. If there are too many people calling you, up your game and work more efficiently. If the DQRMers, lids and continuous callers get you down, ignore them and pick out the good ops who synchronize with you and leave listening gaps. Stop moaning and relish the challenge! Good DXers still want your QSOs and QSLs.

  21. […] https://n6pse.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/dxpeditioners-are-getting-fed-upDX MAGAZINE’S MOST WANTED SURVEY COME TO AN END Carl Smith, N4AA, editor of QRZ DX and the DX Magazine, announced this past week [edited]: […]

  22. RICK - K6VVA says:

    I just saw this Blog info mentioned in the latest OPDX Bulletin. Coincidentally, 2 days ago I put together an outline for an article titled ‘LIDFESTATION’ and did a short video intro. Very interesting indeed and a timely topic of conversation.

    Several years ago I coined the term ‘BULLY LID’ and for good reason. A ‘LID’ has historically been acknowledged as a ‘poor operator’. This group would include DX & IOTA Chaser ‘Newbies’ who need mentoring, but unfortunately there are have been a growing number of ‘LIDS’ in our hobby who are just plain outright Arrogant, Greedy, Selfish B*astard LIDS. The majority of these are NOT ‘Newbies’, but high up on the DXCC and/or IOTA rankings which is a sad commentary on our hobby.

    I won’t clog up your Blog here with much of the text from the upcoming ‘LIDFESTATION’ article, but I believe an example of one ‘BULLY LID’ will help enlighten most of you as to why this problem will NOT go away by itself, and why certain tough solutions must be implemented. Wishful thinking or mentoring will not work. Expedition operators who fail to grow a pair of ‘Steel Balls’ and start really ‘MANAGING’ their initiated pileups will simply perpetuate a state of continued enablement of bad behavior similar to those who keep buying drinks for an alcoholic. STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT I JUST SAID !!!

    The ‘BULLY LID’ example is from the 7th Call Area in the USA, and on both the DXCC Honor Roll and the IOTA Honour Roll. This is NOT a ‘Newbie’ who needs mentoring or who has unlikely not set eyes on the DX CODE Of Conduct.

    After observing this clod perpetually calling Out-Of-Turn and even over the top of the Expedition operator transmitting in TWENTY-FIVE pileups, I sent him a snail mail letter on 21 June 2014. The contents were very straightforward. As of today, 15 November 2015, his ‘BULLY LID’ behavior has continued to a count of THIRTY-SEVEN pileups (this will increase once I update the DNQ2 list again). I’ve redacted the Callsign, and put a copy the letter at:


    Let me clarify this is NOT just a situation of ‘Calling-Out-Of-Turn’ 37 times. In many of the pileups, he was observed being a ‘BULLY LID’ between 5 and 15 times PER PILEUP ;-( With more than 2,000 entries now on my DNQ2 list, this clod is still the top offender. He is now banned from ANY of my Expedition logs for 11 more years and rightfully so. This will increase once I update the list from the last month of notes.

    In my video ‘The BIG PICTURE Of Expedition Operating And The Direct Relationship To Anti-Social Pileup Behavior’ released in 2013, I suggested that since we are not all perfect human beings, perhaps one or two ‘Pileup Mulligans’ per year (NOT per-pileup!!!) might be reasonable for NON-Intentional QLF moments of an ill-timed call or other personal screw up. This is VASTLY DIFFERENT from INTENTIONAL ‘BULLY LIDISM’ behavior observed in the pileups. Many of the Callsigns are the same guys over and over each time.

    Regarding the VK9WA comment, let me tell you what I observed here last night during a brief period.

    The VK9WA 17m SSB operator specifically said (in PLAIN ENGLILSH) ‘Listening UP 5 to 10 for Oceania & the Pacific’. I was impressed, as he said this after *EACH* QSO (just like advocated in my 2013 video). But I also kept hearing WA6TFZ calling Out-Of-Turn each time as well. Yes, WA6TFZ got added to my DNQ2 list after his 2nd Out-Of-Turn call.

    I kept hoping the VK9WA operator would confront this clod, and then I heard him say ‘WA6TFZ you are calling out of turn’. As I was just about to clap, whistle and cheer , when the VK9WA operator then went ahead and gave a signal report to WA6TFZ and worked the jerk. WRONG DECISION !!! This is *NOT* the way to squelch bad pileup behavior, and also sets a bad example for especially ‘Newbies’ in the pileups who may think ‘so this is how it’s done’.

    I looked up WA6TFZ on QRZ.COM, who claims to have 355 DXCC confirmed with a photo of his not-so-modest ‘Antenna Farm’. So this is not the 100w to an indoor attic dipole ‘Newbie’ who many perhaps think should be cut some slack.

    Hopefully by next weekend I will have the ‘LIDFESTATION’ article text completed from my Outline and Notes. In the interim, here is the short 1:07 video intro URL:


    So once again, there are both regular ‘LIDS’ and ‘BULLY LIDS’ in the pileups. It is the Arrogant, Greedy, Selfish ‘BULLY LIDS’ who are destroying are hobby. If *EVERY* Expedition Operator took a hard-line approach to Pileup ‘Management’ we would see some very QRQ results on-air. This will be explained in the ‘LIDFESTATION’ article.


    Rick – K 6 V V A * The Locust

    • n6pse says:

      Rick, you are welcome to post on my Blog anytime. I know that you care deeply about amateur radio and the direction in which this great hobby is going. That comes through loud and clear. Yes, you properly coined the term “bully lid” and it is appropriate in the context of many of these Honor Roll members that operate like a spoiled little child. There are several of them in the W7 call district that come to mind.

      I think its good that DXpedition organizers such as yourself are becoming fed up and are creating methods to combat the problem. I like your edict of only one contact with P5.

      Lets hope that the DXers/IOTA chasers get the message and curtail their bad operating. Its hard to imagine that things could get much worse, but having operated from within Europe, I know full well that they can get worse.

      Best wishes in all your endeavors.

      Paul N6PSE

  23. Barrie says:

    I used to make only a single contact with DX stations, until I received a “not in log” response from a fairly rare DXpedition that was an all-time-new-one, for a contact that I was sure was good. From that day on, I try to make a backup contact, preferably on a different band or a different day, for protection. Frequent updates to Club Log go a long way toward reducing the need for dupes.

    Punishing a station for an apparent dupe is short sighted and draconian; a busted call in the DX log not only robs the original caller of a contact, it prevents the guy with the similar call from making his own contact too. I have occasionally had a DX station repeat my call correctly but type something else in the log–some DX stations will fix busted calls in the log and some will not.

    Paul mentions the problem of “enemies” bootlegging somebody’s call. There was a perfect example of that on the recent K5P expedition: some evil soul was making recordings of stations calling the DX, and then they would play the recording over and over, often on the DX’s frequency. The kilocycle cops went nuts on that one, with lengthy lectures about split operations–QRMing the DX all the while and poisoning the well for the person whose call was being pirated.

    “QSO before” doesn’t solve the problem–the caller may have no idea how or when his call was entered into the log. I think the best answer is just to log the contact (again) and go on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s