Seems we're getting into that time of year when we start rehashing old
arguments again. Maybe SO2R as a separate category and eliminating
Packet will be next...
Re the subject at hand, I disagree, Yuri. The CQWW contest has no
exchange to copy. All you need to do is get the callsign correct. Is
that too much to ask? There needs to be an incentive for accuracy and
this is the way to do it.
I do believe working same-country multipliers should be eliminated.
73,
Barry
K3BU@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/6/2006 10:58:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> ct1boh@gmail.com writes:
>
>>> It is interesting to see that the good efforts by contest adjudicators
>>>
> to penalize inaccuracy and the ever increasing score reduction
> penalties may be backfiring with increased tampering of logs by the
> entrants made possible by the widespread availability of post
> contesting log checking tools.<<
>
> Been hit by it "not in log" while I know I worked the station.
>
> Time to remove the 3 QSO "PENALTIES"
> They are illogical, have no parallel in real life tests and causing of
> scratching unsure QSOs and penalizing the other station by creating not in
> log entry.
> The argument of "teaching us the lesson" of logging carefully is just plain
> silly.
> Bad QSO is just bad QSO and should be removed, not counted, period.
> Time to mature!!!
>
> Oh, and add ONE point for domestic - own country QSOs in CQ WW. Another
> overdue and timely change for better!
>
>
> Yuri, K3BU, N8T, N2EE, K8V
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP
Newtown, PA
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|