PAA05463
Sender: owner-cq-contest@contesting.com
Precedence: bulk
X-List-Info: http://www.contesting.com/cq-contest-faq.html
X-Sponsor: W4AN, KM3T, N5KO & AD1C
On Mon, 10 May 1999 14:10:07 EDT, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 5/10/99 10:58:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, k2av@qsl.net
>writes:
>
><< There is a better way: TWO-WAY ACCURACY BONUS. A reward given BOTH
> stations ONLY when a qso is completely accurate BOTH ways.
> >>
>
>Do you also reward your children for not misbehaving? Give me a break.
Is that how you regard contest entrants...children to be punished if
they get out of line?
I did give the kids "bonuses" for neat stuff beyond the call of duty.
A's in school got special treatment. Should I have penalized them in
some manner for a "B" and dropped the rewards for an "A"?
Actually there is a huge area in our culture where positive
reinforcement of desired behaviours (expandable allowances for
children, bonuses for adults, incentive clauses, etc, etc, etc.) has
proven far more effective for ELECTIVE areas of our culture (not to be
confused with prison penalties for thieves and murderers).
For a lot of people, they find things TAKEN AWAY from them more or
less permanently irritating. These people aren't criminals,
malcontents, or mental cases, either, just regular decent people.
>Not only is this symptomatic of people not taking responsibility for their
>own behavior, but it makes a statement that mediocrity is the norm.
Sorry, I can't agree that bonuses make mediocrity the norm, or desire
for them identify the irresponsible in our society.
>When I submit a log it is "my best and final effort."
This is true of mine as well, and I have done as best I can at the
time, given my skills at the time. I never go into a contest looking
to do a mediocre effort. I work hard at improving my skills. And I
still believe that bonuses are more effective in a broader spectrum,
and a great deal more pleasant in nature than penalties assessed for
the natural outcome of a given skill level. I still find penalties
irritating, no matter how many posts selling the contrary from my
cordial and appreciated friends out in contest-land.
> When it is checked, it
>
>should be given the benefit of the doubt, but detected errors (for whatever
>reason and using the technology available) should be removed. The penalty
>QSO's have probably outlived their usefulness, however.
Even if you take away the penalties, the running station who runs on
past people trying to get fills, etc, just because he has to keep his
run rate up, will get points that the little guy end of the qso can't.
The running station gets his point. The calling station looses the
QSO. This seems unfair or unbalanced, but it is permitted by the
present system. In this case the two-way accuracy bonus insures that
the running station has incentive to care about the little guy.
The top station will be the one that manages to combine good station,
good antennas, speed, accuracy AND consideration for the other end of
the qso. It's that last one that has not shown up on the scores to
date.
In any emergency, TWO-WAY accuracy is essential. KNOWING FOR SURE that
the other guy got it right is part and parcel of what needs being
done.
This might be trite in the CQWW where the only information usually in
question is the call sign. But given the origins of the SS, I think it
fits right in.
73
>
>Tom, K5RC
>aka K7GJ
73, Guy
--. .-..
Guy Olinger, K2AV
k2av@qsl.net
Apex, NC, USA
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|