The reason you get no sympathy around here is that everyone who participates
in a contest gets scored the same way. You are right, its not like the old
days where only the top few logs in a category may get a good looking at.
And it is much easier for the log checkers to find NIL and B and even bad
exchanges in some contests... and since the computer does much of the work
there are many of us seeing score reductions now that 10 years ago would
never have been taken because the log checkers just didn't have time to
check everything by hand. But when you enter the contest you know the
rules, you know the scoring method, and you know the penalties, they are all
there in black and white... including the statement that the judgement of
the log checkers is final, bla, bla, bla, and more legalese... So, by
sending in your log, YOU AGREED to these rules, including the penalties!
Its not like this is something new that was hatched after whatever contest
you are complaining about this time was run just to reduce your score and
prevent you from breaking a record. These techniques have been around for
years and are well known and are applied to everyone. You don't like the
rules, either don't participate, or work with the contest sponsors to change
them... but don't think that throwing flaming emails on an email reflector
year after year is going to get the rules changed. It might get you some
attention, mostly bad, but for the most part it won't get your issues
addressed by the people who you have to persuade. So get yourself elected
as a cac member for the arrl if you can, or try to make nice with the cqww
committee, and if they already aren't too annoyed with your ranting maybe,
just maybe, you might persuade them to see it your way in a few years.
David Robbins K1TTT
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:cq-contest-
> email@example.com] On Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 14:29
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty PS
> 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
> 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!
> Yuri Blanarovich, K3BU
> Zero points for your own country QSOs in CQ WW is another story :-)
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list