I guess I don't get it. If you don't log him, you lose the points. If you
log him incorrectly, you lose the points. I don't think there is a penalty
for having one more station in the UBN, is there?
----- Original Message -----
From: George Fremin III - K5TR <email@example.com>
To: Mark Beckwith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 04:42:27PM -0600, Mark Beckwith wrote:
> > > Then keep it in your log and be more careful next time.
> I will confess to saying the above.
> > So I am guessing the answer to my question is there is not a way to do
> > I want. Either I take the hit for being an idiot or I impose the hit on
> > innocent guy.
> > I don't like either option.
> Yeah - well I guess we could go back to the old SS scoring
> and get one point for sending and one for receiving.
> > Tree? Trey? Dave? Anyone out there in log-checking land have a
> > answer on this?
> None of the contests that I am familiar with have a method for
> logging, scoring and checking half finished or half worked or
> half logged contacts. Some feel that this is wrong - you can
> read all about that in the archives of this very list.
> While your case is slightly diffrent in that you had it
> logged but then deleted the information. I am sure most of
> us have done similar things. It will not be the end of the
> world for you or for the person you worked if you or
> he loose points. I still feel that it really is best if we
> just log and check valid contacts. Most contests require a
> two-way exchange of information to form a valid contact.
> The NAQP has this rule:
> Valid Contact: A valid contact consists of a complete, correctly
> copied and legibly logged two-way exchange between a North American
> station and any other station.
> Correctly logging the contact is part of making the contact.
> George Fremin III - K5TR
> CQ-Contest mailing list