:On 12/14/99 1:20, Don Russell at drussell@knox.net wrote:
:
:>
:>With all the computer logging that goes on during the contest there are
:>only a few reasons why a QSO is a dupe and none of them are good.
:>
:>He busted your call.
:>You busted his call.
::Bill Coleman, AA4LR wrote:
:In either of these cases, it would be good to know that a busted contact
:took place, so you could correct the previous log entry. Otherwise, one
:or both of you will lose points for this contact.
:
That may take too much valuable time. I would just work him and make a note
to check previous contact later (e.g. when the contest is over). Then if
you are in doubt about the first contact and absolutely sure about the
second just award 0 points
to the first contact and you will not be penalized.
:
:It is probably expedient to just work the dupes and get on with it. But
:in the first two cases, the correct course of action would be to identify
:the errant QSO and correct it.
Better be done after the contest. You may actually loose more by stopping in
the middle of the pile up and starting finding out what went wrong the first
time. Braking the pace may cost you 5 or 10 QSO unless you are a rare one
and people prepared to wait till you get sorted with the problem.
I see the following scenario:
XX0XX - calls
YOU - QSO b4
XX0XX - gone thinking:
"I know you are not in my log but I am not going to waist time explaining
you. You are not a rare multiplier and I will better work another two or
three calls making use of the saved time. If it were me getting your call
sign wrong first time I will find it out in the post contest processing. If
the busted call would appear legal I will leave it in the log. If it turns
to be illegal I will delete the qso (worst case) or just assign 0 points to
it"
Then if it is the "worst case" you may also loose a multiplier if that was
the only one from that country that you worked on the band. So it is sure
safer to work those rare mults again without sending them QSO B 4 stuff.
:
:Most contests have relatively short exchanges, so any communication of
:the QSO times or numbers wastes too much time. In ARRL Sweepstakes, the
:exchange is quite long, (and has unique numbers) so correcting it might
:be more expedient. (eg QSO B4 UR NR 123)
That sounds reasonable but calls for some sort of experiment involving time
mapping.
Long exchange may call for a long explanations.
Igor, UA9CDC
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|