Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+QSO\s+Penalties\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+QSO\s+Penalties\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:32:41 -0700; The 3 QSO penalty rule makes perfect sense to me. Anything else encourages guessing whenever there is uncertainty. Consider the following options: 0 QSO penalty: If in doubt, it is _always_ to your a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00212.html (10,564 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 20:47:32 EDT; guessing whenever there is uncertainty. Consider the following options: 0 QSO penalty: If in doubt, it is _always_ to your advantage to guess at a callsign or exchange element. If you get it wrong, y; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00215.html (9,610 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Georgens, Tom" <tom.georgens@engenio.com>; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 19:08:18 -0700; As I see it, the question is whether the score reductions are intended to be a penalty or an estimated correction of the score to the true result (valid Q's times valid mults). Before the sophisticat; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00217.html (12,964 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 21:03:21 -0500; What's wrong with the idea of a penalty? Yuri is twisting logic himself when he can't see that a penalty in a contest isn't dissimilar to a financial penalty for speeding. By his logic, a speeding ti; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00218.html (9,059 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 22:55:14 -0400; Yes, the three QSO penalty comes from the days of manual log checking. Since it was impossible to cross check every QSO in every log, the sponsors checked the top logs as carefully as possible and s; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00220.html (9,076 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:49:24 EDT; Yuri is twisting logic himself when he can't see that a penalty in a contest isn't dissimilar to a financial penalty for speeding. By his logic, a speeding ticket would not hurt, you'd simply have to; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00229.html (11,883 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 15:27:56 EDT; In a message dated 5/16/05 6:27:24 PM Greenwich Standard Time, K3BU@aol.com writes: Thank you for another example of "ham" logic :-) Let me try another example, maybe it will help. You are doing driv; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00236.html (9,536 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:28:12 -0700; The scenario I have in mind is this: most of the way through the QSO, you suddenly doubt whether or not you correctly copied part of the callsign* - for example, was it really K3BU or maybe K4BU? At; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00237.html (11,904 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:08:25 -0700; How about a less extreme example, Yuri. You comeback to very weak W4 who is calling you on CW. You ask for several repeats and you think it is W4EU, but your are still not sure even after the repeats; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00240.html (11,779 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:10:20 -0700; Delete the QSO .... that is not what you were pushing for a few years ago: On 6-Sep-2000 K3BU said: http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2000-09/msg00052.html -- Speaking statistical; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00244.html (9,478 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 18:43:15 EDT; Delete the QSO .... that is not what you were pushing for a few years ago: On 6-Sep-2000 K3BU said: http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2000-09/msg00052.html -- Speaking statistical; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00248.html (9,919 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Andrew Faber" <andrew.faber@gte.net>; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:49:22 -0700; Mike, Thanks for your analysis. Though reasonable minds may differ, I think we want to encourage, not discourage, reasonable guesswork. After all, these aren't the SATs. While these are contests, the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00250.html (14,168 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:16:17 -0700; Did you read the thread? http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2000-09/msg00035.html It and several of the related ones that kicked the thread off were all about the 'penalty thing'.; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00252.html (10,288 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Nat Heatwole" <nat@ajheatwole.com>; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 20:03:52 -0400; You're distorting the issue. The speeding ticket fine is the PENALTY for speeding, just as losing 3 QSOs is the PENALTY for logging an incorrect QSO. Each improper act has a corresponding penalty. Th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00255.html (10,380 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:38:54 EDT; Did you read the thread? http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2000-09/msg00035.html It and several of the related ones that kicked the thread off were all about the 'penalty thing'.; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00261.html (10,600 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com; Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:45:42 EDT; Rules exist both to help ensure that one does not profit from improper conduct and to promote proper conduct by penalizing someone found breaking the rules. In your scheme of only losing the dinged Q; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00262.html (8,835 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Bob Naumann" <n5nj@gte.net>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 07:02:49 -0500; "How do I brake the rules if I worked the station, I heard my call, we exchanged reports, confirmed it, then I get UBN report and I am not in his log? Please explain why do I deserve to be hit with 3; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00268.html (9,635 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2ic@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 13:08:12 -0400; Enough already ! Can we please go QRT on this thread ? At least for a year or two, when K3BU is certain to bring it up again ? If we keep this going, Yuri is certain to bring up another of his tired,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00270.html (8,965 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:56:43 EDT; also no record of a QSO with a callsign even close to yours that the other station busted. How would it be different if you were actually attempting to gain credit for QSOs you didn't make? Well, it; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00273.html (9,647 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1): Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:30:22 -0400; "Steve London" <n2ic@arrl.net> wrote: "Enough already ! Can we please go QRT on this thread ?" Finally, someone with some logic! I've about worn out the delete key, on a brand new keyboard! C'Ya, She; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00284.html (8,372 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]