> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-admin@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> admin@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lee Hiers
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 19:19
> To: Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Pirates, ghosts and things that go bump in
the
> QRM
>
> Larry has pointed out a bunch of situations that may result in
> NIL...here are my comments on 'em:
>
> On 13 Nov 2002 at 9:33, Larry N7DF wrote:
>
> > 1. The other guy may have sent his call wrong.
>
> Then the QSO should not be removed from my log.
If it is truly unique it probably won't be. You win on this one, or at
least break even.
>
> > 2. There may be a pirate using someone else's call or a fictional
> > call.
>
> Since the pirate is probably not going to send in a log, it most
> likely wouldn't result in a ding.
A fictional call, as in one that is not issued at all, will be a b- and
be removed with penalty. If the call does exist but is not someone in
the contest again you probably break even and get the qso. If they
happen to pick someone's call they just heard up the band in the
contest, and that participant doesn't work you so you are in their log,
again you lose with a nil that gets removed with penalty.
>
> > 3. Someone may accidentally send someone else's call instead of
his.
> > This is possible in some logging programs. (i.e. in CT hit F5
instead
> > of F4)
>
> Then the QSO should not be removed from my log. It is an error of
> the sending station...but similar to #2 in that there probably won't
> be a ding due to no log sent in under the wrong call.
>
again, if this is actually the call of another participant who sends in
a log and you don't really work them, you lose with a nil and penalty.
If it's a call of someone who doesn't send in a log then you break even
and get the qso.
> > 4. The station that actually came back to you was someone other than
> > the station you were calling. This happens a lot as I have
confirmed
> > by replaying tapes of QSOs.
>
> Yes it does, and probably both stations should be penalized, as the
> QSO was not properly completed. That's not what happened in my case
> BTW.
If the station that came back to you got your call and report, even
though you meant it for someone else and they log it, they will lose
because they are not in your log. However if you accept their response
instead of the real station you were calling you will lose also as you
will log the exchange for a station you don't work so you are nil... if
there is any doubt that the right station came back to you, you can try
to straighten it out by sending the call of the station you thought you
were calling before you send a report so the respondents know who it is
meant for.... or just call the station you really wanted to work again
and ignore the other guy... or work the other guy and then try to work
the one you really wanted again.... too many options here.
>
> > 5. You may have typed the other station's call wrong.
>
> If I typed the other station's call wrong, I should get dinged. But
> my understanding of the software is that it is smart enough to
> determine that that is what happened and righteously removes the QSO
> and assesses the appropriate penalty...assuming it was a fairly
> simple typo.
Simple typos (one letter off type of things) will be matched up so the
other guy doesn't lose credit when his log is checked against yours.
You could still lose credit if the call in your log ends up as bad or
nil.
>
> > 6. The other guy may have typed your call wrong.
>
> Then he should get dinged. Again, I think the software will likely
> flag that.
Again, if he is close enough for the software to figure it out you will
get credit but he may lose.
>
> > 7. The other guy may have accidentally erased your call from his
log.
>
> Then *he* should be penalized, not me.
Oh well, in this case you lose due to no fault of your own. Not much
that can be done with this one.
>
> > 8. You may be depending on a packet spot for the other guy's call
and
> > it is wrong on the Packet spot.
>
> No one should rely on a packet spot to get a callsign. You should be
> assessed double the normal penalty for logging a call based on a spot
> rather than copying the call....no that couldn't be enforced
> equitably either.
>
I'll agree on this... always be sure you copy the other guys call,
ESPECIALLY if it is from a packet spot!
> > 9. Gremlins may have invaded your head and you are imagining
things.
>
> If that's the case, then I should be dinged. While that may happen,
> in my situation, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case.
>
> So there are lots of situations where it's not so cut-and-dried.
> Yet, with a "rule" that says if you're NOL you're automatically SOL,
> in some cases the offending station is not penalized, and the
> innocent party is.
>
> That's why I don't like it. Plus, it happened to me.
>
> Oh well...that's just the way it is.
>
"Oh well" is right. As long as they administer the same rules to all
the logs hopefully it all evens out in the end.
On a slightly different vein...
Personally I don't like the way the cqww rtty logs get processed
differently than other cqww logs. But after all it is a more demanding
mode that when done properly should result in fewer errors in the logs,
so it kind of makes sense to hold it to a higher standard. I do believe
the zone discrepancy problem they had last year will be fixed in the
checking process this year. And I hope they find some better way to
deal with 'uniques', there are always those 'nice guys' who get on and
work one or two of their friends and then go watch football because they
don't like contests... they should not cause their friends to be
penalized.
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
|