What??? Benefit Multi's (and it's only Multi-2's really that are hit
with this) how?? If you are inside the 10min band change window your
choices are:
1. Delete the Q's...cleans your log but hurts the other guy
2. Use the 'little x's' as you say. This clearly shows you cannot
count these calls in your log but rather than 'scrub' the log you are
admitting you were 'early' on the band change and don't want the
other guys to be penalized. X the Q so the other guy doesn't get
penalized.
3. Do neither and take the multi-Q penalty for each band change or
10min rule violation.
So, I find it hard to see a way this benefits the multi-op in any of
these scenarios...2 and 3 the Multi-op is being honest and up front
about the mistake (a 1 stroke penalty in golf if you will)...1 hurt's
the other guy and still only benefits the Multi from a penalty.
X-Qso's make a lot of sense.
Virtually every PJ4X log I have submitted over the years for WWSSB
has had at least one band-change violation (M/2)...in one year we had
160Q's docked because of an issue with the logging software itself.
We worked with the contest adjudicators and still lost Q's, but not
to that level.
So...please...explain how a M/2 benefits from the X-QSO?
W1MD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of
W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:29:00 PM
*To:* cq-contest@contesting.com
*Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
So with this logic, it would benefit any Multis to break the 10 minute
rules all the time and them scrub the log with little X's and remove the
qso's that benefit them the least? Is that what happened in 2016? Will
we ever know the rest of the story. Will these Multi's be made public
and asked to provide some explanations? If the Multi in question had
used little X's at least other participants would not have been damaged
while the multi get off scott free?
A golfer that attempts to hide a mistake will be DQed. They also have
very stiff penalties in the form of strokes that are added to their
score where winners and losers are decided by 1 stroke many many times.
Car racing you exceed the pit speed limit, you lose a lap. Good luck
winning. It can happen but not often
If you don't run the right course on a running race, you get a DQ. Step
over the line tossing a javelin and the toss does not count I can go on
for a long time about many other sporting competitions where you are
penalized for breaking the rules. Not in contesting. Sorry about that
12 or 15 minutes of extra time, self spots, excessive power and on and
on and most just want to look the other way.
Should multi's that can't count to 10 be penalized 2 to 10 mults per
occurrence? You break the 10 minute rule by choice. It is part of the
game to get it right, just like copying callsigns. Using a little X to
make things right does not sit well with me. Maybe they should lose 10
minutes of qso's on both sides of the mistake?
Brain cramps? Mistakes or calculated choices? That is hard to judge.
How about people follow the rules instead of giving people more ways to
game the game? The rules are pretty freaking simple. The only reason
people keep pushing the rules is that very little is ever done. We
can't embarrass our buddies, that club needs the points to win, etc.
I have no empathy for those that can't managed to do the right things
and have a boat load of excuses why they broke said rules.
Are we to the point where we just give everyone the same certificate to
make everyone feel wonderful in radio contesting?
The unassisted guy the uses packet and then claims Unassisted and scrubs
a few packet contacts to make it look better with some cute little X's?
Intentionally deleting contacts to avoid a 10 minute issue lacks any
integrity and honesty. I find it hard to believe that people would
support it.
Self spotting? Who cares. People build skimmers and put them at
friends houses or at their own to get spotted on CW and RTTY. What is
the difference? We had a huge discussion about this and I think most
people seemed to agree that limited self spotting would actually benefit
the contest.
To allow people to break the rules and then just allow them off the hook
with an X in a log is a total joke and insults the rest of us that can
read and follow the rules.
W0MU
On 4/12/2017 10:54 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> (This is directed at the thread, not to counter anything written by
K3ZJ)
>
> The X-QSO tool is a sound practice of correcting for brain cramps.
I do not believe anyone would want a big multi-op station’s entire
weekend ruined by inadvertently screwing up the 10-minute rule or
misjudging when to get back on after a mandated break period. X-QSO
allows for that, as you are not claiming credit for QSOs made in
violation.
>
> Golf is one of the most-scrutinized ‘honor’ sports there is, to the
point viewers on TV can even spot violations and notify organizers by
email. However, even if such violations prove true, the golfer’s
entire tournament is not necessarily lost: a penalty is applied for
failing to claim a stroke and a further penalty is claimed for filing
a false scorecard.
>
> However, if the golfer identifies the violation and records the
appropriate penalty before submitting the scorecard, all is good.
This can happen at ANY TIME before submitting the card — at the time
of the violation or after holing out the 18th. Either way, the score
still counts, even if failing to record a penalty carries very
punitive consequences.
>
> Is the X-QSO not the same as saying, “Hey, I moved that ball before
striking it, so I’m taking the penalty stroke.”?
>
> The scenario raised features an unassisted op working a bunch of
packet spots and then marking each as X-QSO. This is interesting, but
I don’t see the point, since X-QSO means the QSOs don't count at all:
you don’t get the QSO points nor do you get the multipliers. It’s in
the log so the people you worked don’t pay for your mistake, but you
gain no benefit from the QSOs.
>
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
>
>
>> On Apr 12, 2017, at 6:13 AM, David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> To be clear in context and for *most* contests, for mono band
(single band)
>> entries, there is no need to use the "X-QSO" function for QSOs on a
>> different band. Assuming that your single band category is correctly
>> identified in the cabrillo file, all QSOs on a different band (1)
will be
>> disregarded for purposes of your submission but (2) counted for the
>> correspondent station. The "X-QSO" function is to remove QSOs
from your
>> score within your category that otherwise would be included.
>>
>> 73, Dave K3ZJ
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD
<k5zd@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This will depend on the contest. For CQWW, the other station should
>>> receive
>>> credit for the QSO.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Peter Voelpel [mailto:dj7ww@t-online.de]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:38 AM
>>>> To: k5zd@charter.net
>>>> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>>>>
>>>> Hi Randy,
>>>>
>>>> What happens to the other station?
>>>>
>>>> I had two QSOs in CQWW 2016 marked with X on a different band
while doing
>>>> mono band.
>>>> Both qsos are listed under "Stations Receiving Not In Log From
DJ7WW".
>>>> Their public logs show them both.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of
>>>> Randy Thompson K5ZD
>>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 12. April 2017 12:19
>>>> To: john@kk9a.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>>>>
>>>> The Cabrillo specification does allow for this. See
>>>> https://wwrof.org/cabrillo/cabrillo-specification-v3/
<https://wwrof.org/cabrillo/cabrillo-specification-v3/>
>>>>
>>>> X-QSO: qso-data
>>>> Any QSO marked with this tag will be ignored in your log. Use to
mark
>>>> QSOs made that you do not want to count toward your score.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This tag was created to give people a way to mark a QSO as not
counting
>>>> and not have to remove it from their log.
>>>>
>>>> Note: Not every contest may accept this tag, but it is
recognized by the
>>>> major contests.
>>>>
>>>> Randy, K5ZD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf
>>>>> Of john@kk9a.com
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:45 AM
>>>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a way to have some unclaimed QSOs in a cabrillo file?
>>>>>
>>>>> John KK9A
>>>>>
>>>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>>>>> From: "Dick Green WC1M"
>>>>> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:31:33 -0400
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 73, Dick WC1M
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest