I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX: Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several changes that will t
"Penalties" are for lawbreakers and sinners. You farkle up a QSO, you don't get credited with the Q. What could be simpler? You want a penalty, break the 6th Commandment! 73, Hans, K0HB -- 73, de Han
This was brought up at the contest forum. It was no surprise when K5ZD brought up the fact that the top finishing stations had very low NIL while the ones lower in the rankings had much higher NILs.
Author: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:12:40 -0400
Bill, I wasn't at Dayton so I didn't get the chance to talk to anyone about the changes (you often get some pretty good insight after about 10:00 pm on Friday or Saturday night). While I agree that t
I was not at the contest forum, but several observations: 1.? The issue was addressed in the recent CQWW survey. Might the change indicate that most people thought a 3 qso penalty was excessive? 2.?
I was there. Randy said a number of guys were winding up with negative scores. That certainly doesn't encourage long term participation by newbies. Barry W2UP While I agree that the leniency on buste
I suspect the answer is actually quite mundane. When the 3:1 penalty was first introduced, log checking was still on paper and only a small proportion of errors were actually detected (in any case, w
Why is ANY penalty appropriate? Seriously. You screw up the Q - you get no credit. Simple! Penalties are punishment for violations. Is lack of skill in copying a call a violation? Seriously? -- 73, d
Glad to see incremental improvement in contest rules, thanks Randy! Just strikes me, ham radio "logic" vs. rest of the life logic. Where in life do we have 3 times "penalty" for mistake, error, innac
It's not the end of the world but with the proliferation of click the packet/skimmer spot and call contesting, I kind of like the added emphasis on logging accuracy. Ken K4ZW ________________________
Not to disgree with everything Yuri writes, but often, multiple-choice university exams WILL include penalties for wrong answers to disincentivize guessing. (IOW: better to leave it blank than guess
Easy question. It stops guys from guessing numbers in a tough QSO. Not all of the guessed numbers will be caught. It stops people from guessing a partial call in a Q. Yes, you can guess, but just lik
Kelly, The station which makes the "most clean Q's" should win. If I make 800 Q's with no errors and you make 805 Q's with 4 errors (same mults), then you beat me 801 to 800. Unless we played in a so
The station which makes the "most clean Q's" should win. If I make 800 Q's with no errors and you make 805 Q's with 4 errors (same mults), then you beat me 801 to 800. Unless we played in a socially
Not so, Steve. If I cobble up your call in SS, I simply lose that Q. There is no "encouragement penalty" beyond that. 73, Hans, K0HB -- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a boy and his radio" -- Sea stories at
Apparently it doesn't stop anything. It may be a deterrent for some but honestly a guy that is working 200 contacts probably is not doing it for a score. We beg people for logs and then they send the
Sorry Hans...that is incorrect. Look carefully at any of your recent SS Log Checking Reports (LCR). Busted call = loss of QSO + 1 penalty QSO. Not-in-log call = loss of QSO + 1 penalty QSO. Busted ex
I stand corrected. It's worse than we thought, Steve! They're all in this together! 73, Hans, K0HB ARRL Phone Sweepstakes Hater (CW SS rocks!) -- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a boy and his radio" -- Sea s
Hans - Actually, this exact type of issue has been worked out in any number of sports. Let's take American football: Depending upon the infraction, the offending team does not simply lose their turn,
Your analogy is not relevant to the discussion, Steve. Your example addresses the violation of rules (which we'd all agree ought to be penalized). Poor copying or logging skills (busted calls, transp