On 3 Nov 98, DougKR2Q@aol.com wrote:
> As an example, if someone (say XX9XX, were to work W3BG as a
> Unique qso [and I am assuming that W3BG is a genuine callsign],
> while W3BGN were found in the logs of over 1000 other stations, the
> "computer" would NOT deduct points for the W3BG qso, though it
> WOULD be flagged on the UBN list as a U call. When the HUMAN log
> checker sees W3BG marked as a U calls, a CROSS-CHECK is made, based
> on band, day, and time. If it is found that W3BGN worked XX9XX on
> the same band, day, and time as XX9XX is claiming the QSO with
> W3BG, then qso credit, with penalty, WOULD be applied for the W3BG
> qso in the XX9XX log. And THAT is how many scores are "lower" than
> what you see as the CALCULATED score on the UBN list/report.
I think you're saying the W3BG qso would be deleted from the XX9XX
log with penalty, correct?
If so, what if XX9XX was running a pileup, answered and worked W3BG,
but W3BGN *thought* he was the one being worked and logged the Q.
W3BG needed XX9XX for a new one and that is the only QSO he
worked...he even has a QSL card to prove it. If, as you say, the
QSO was removed from XX9XX's log and left in W3BGN's log, the wrong
station is being penalized, no?
I'm not interested in the statistical possibility of this
scenario...it is possible, and that is enough IMO to preclude
penalizing the wrong station by not deleting the QSO from XX9XX.
Just like the QSO I made last year with a US multi-multi station for
a double mult that was removed from my log because the multi-multi
was too lazy or whatever to log my zero-point QSO, the wrong stations
are penalized in some situations.
While I do think it is an admirable goal to have accurate scores
reported, I believe the CQ log-checking practices are overly
aggressive. I think they should lighten up...after all, it's just a
hobby.
73 de Lee
--
Lee Hiers - AA4GA
Cornelia, GA
mailto:aa4ga@contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|