Howdy fellow contesters.
Just postscript to the 3 QSO "penalty" thing.
I made my comments addressing the silliness of the 3 QSO penalty in present
times and state of technology and tried to amplify my point by using some
stronger language or poor humor.
I have been attacked and bitten by the barnyard greyhounds and sort of
supported by fine Arabian contest horses. I have not fallen recently off the
contesting tree to be told that I did not work them, I see the problem, trying
to bring attention to it in hope to IMPROVE things for us contesters, make
contesting better, even more attractive for newbies.
1. 3 QSO penalty is the carry over from the days when we did logging with paper
and pencil. You had to keep the dupe sheet, you were required to check and
cross the dupes out and not to count them. It was when we had control over the
dupes and it was up to us to make sure we did not count dupes and put undue
burden on paper log checkers (who would dupe thousands of QSOs for sloppy
operator?) The penalty made perfect sense then and no beef there.
2. Computer logging and checking came on the scene, with it Cabrillo format
that can do only so much. Dupes are no big deal now, 3 QSO penalty rule was now
"nailed" to "punish" us for sloppy logging. While the logic is weird in normal
life, log checkers and "rulers" are proud of having this tool in thinking that
it will bring us to error free loging.
The reality is this, with computer logging, nasty problem creeps in - computers
and operators crash, goof, make errors. Even If one is perfect, as many already
mentioned, the other side could have a problem, computer quirk, wrong
keystroke, typo - causing for you not to be recognized or logged in the other
log. Merciless computer log checker will flag you as N and swiftly apply
"penalty" to you for doing nothing wrong. Fair? Hardly.
The point is that we get penalized for not making error or being sloppy, but
because the other side lost the contact in their log after we both thought we
made it. Yes, we make mistakes too, but assessing 3 QSO penalty does not make
me any more precise as just simply taking that bad QSO out. I do not purposely
go fast like hell not caring what the other station is doing.
Some say what's the big deal, it forces you to be more precise, everybody is on
the same boat, get a life. For the majority of situations, perhaps no big deal.
For some situation, like QRP, being close to beating records (which gets harder
and harder), opening tool for "screwing" someone by feeding them phony QSOs -
it becomes major concern. Do we really need this "punishment" in this day and
age of computer loging? I do not think so, YMMV and I will always try to obey
by the rules, but I will speak out if I think there is a way to improve our
beloved contesting. Do we want to record whole contest and bring K1VR to be the
judge in the Court of QSOs?
I perhaps jumped into conclusion that M/S took my QSOs out, without knowing for
sure what was in their logs. Just based on my and other's previous experiences
I thought it was de javue. Looks more like case of my QRPeee puny signal did
not make them comfortable to confirm the QSO and I was perhaps scratched as
"not sure" rather than "inconvenient". But the case was - I called them (for
cca 20 min), they came back with my full call, the rest was up them. I
apologize for accusations.
I promise not to harp on this again, if the consensus of majority is that this
is the best way to "teach" us error free logging. I also promise not to go QRP,
unless I am stuck in N. Korea with battery operated peep-squeak. Life is too
short for QRP, see y'all from serious rhombic farm and no more QRPeeeing.
Stay cool and safe!
73
Yuri Blanarovich, K3BU
Zero points for your own country QSOs in CQ WW is another story :-)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|