CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW support etc

To: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW support etc
From: "Alexander Teimurazov" <at@at-communication.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:40:12 +0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
       Dear Kelly,
 Im not talking about remove penalties
 If I copy call sign wrong then propably its ok to penalize (on the same
time penalti level is so high ) but I think for not in the log people dont
have to be penalized
           73                       Al 4L5A/D4B

> >  We all humans and can make mistakes
>
> Hello Al,
>
> While I agree with the sentiment that we all make mistakes, those
operators
> who make fewer mistakes are better operators and should be rewarded.
> Otherwise, you take accuracy out of the equation.
>
> What removing penalties would mean, then, is that no attention needs to be
> paid to such things as getting callsigns correct or getting the
information
> correct, since taking extra steps to do that would lower overall rate. If
> the penalty was only to lose the bad QSO, then it would be in your
interests
> to blow out the doors on rate because you could more than make up for the
> lost Q by working two or more guys in the time it would take to wait for a
> fill. Having the penalty gives you an incentive to get it right.
>
> If you're not in someone else's log at the time you say you worked him,
you
> didn't work him, so you shouldn't get credit.
>
> Having accuracy as part of the equation is a good thing, since it can to
an
> extent equalize stations: being big isn't necessarily enough. Being big
AND
> good is still key.
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>