I sympathize with your not getting credit for the QSOs, but an accusation of
cheating is off the mark in this case. After all, if they intended to cheat,
why did they remove the QSOs from the logs?
Problems with the band-change clock are usually due to operator mistakes or
poor operating practice. In the heat of battle, an op might inadvertently
miss the 10-minute timer going off in the logging program. Or, the op might
work stations without first determining the call or whether it's a new mult
(i.e., "shoots first and asks questions later".) This is poor operating
practice but understandable when the CQing station doesn't ID often enough
(another poor operating practice.) The operation might have a policy of
"work everything and figure it out later.", which is extremely poor practice
but not what I would call cheating. It's sort of dumb, too, because while
you're working all those stations that don't count you aren't looking for
and working new mults.
What these stations *should* have done is mark the QSOs as Unclaimed. That
way, you get credit and they don't.
I was advised to do that by K3EST for the 8P8P CQ WW SSB M/S log when we
discovered that a bug in our logging software caused us to make a
significant number of QSOs outside the 10-minute window. This was back in
the days when log scrubbing wasn't as strongly discouraged as it is now. I
don't know what the CQ WW CC would advise today.
Seems to me the best policy is allow unclaimed QSOs on the boundary of the
time window but impose a penalty when there are more than a certain number
of unclaimed QSOs inside the window (i.e., allow mistakes but discourage bad
operating practice.) There should also be a penalty for removing a large
number of QSOs that are found in other logs.
So, let's not call it cheating. As I often say about business and politics,
"You can't tell the difference between conspiracy and incompetence -- they
look the same!"
73, Dick WC1M
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Smith VE9AA [mailto:ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca]
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 5:56 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
A couple of the locals (and many of you, I am sure) found that we are not in
the logs of a couple big-ish M/S's and M-2 Caribbean stations logs for the
latest CQWW SSB 2016
Both of us are very very careful with mults and have very low LCR % errors.
(0.4% NIL's) (14 calls out of 3112 QSO's)
At first I thought maybe they just fat fingered our callsigns, but it was
too much of a coincidence so we went digging.
We saw the open (public) logs and see some big gaps (where our QSO's should
be at) and 'surmise' their logs have been scrubbed of common, non-mult
contacts to meet the 10minute and only work mults QSO rules for M-S & M-2
operations.
Should THIS really be allowed? If I work someone in good faith, I certainly
don't expect to be scrubbed from their log because they were cheating.
I've seen it all now.. Do I have to say "59 - 5, please don't scrub me from
your log" ;-) <tic>
Now *I* am paying because others are cheating.
Mike VE9AA
Mike, Coreen & Corey
Keswick Ridge, NB
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|