Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty

[sbloom@acsalaska.net]

BTW folks:
 
I think most here know this ..but ..if I (or really any of the 
Alaskans) gives you a nil after a few tries ..I promise that we're not 
doing this ...we really do have an awful lot of one way propagation 
.and much more QSB that most (I think) ..when that is going on 
.sometimes we'll just lose you completely ..or figure we're more 
likely to hae a  valid q later by emphasizing that the Q hadn't been 
made. 
 
73
Steve KL7SB
 
 

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:32:54 -0500, Kelly Taylor  wrote:

      Regardless of the contest’s scoring, not giving an honest 
effort to copy someone who has called you is, at best, unsportsmanlike. 
It might not work out in the end, but not even trying?
I can think of worse words, but in the interests of civility, I’ll 
stick to unsportsmanlike. 

That said, it has happened to me. Once, my payoff at the end was 
discovering the same station missed his sweep by, you guessed it, 
Manitoba! Karma!
73, kelly, ve4xt

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Michael Clarson  wrote:
>
> Ken: I've experienced this from the other end. Working a station on SSB, he
> repeats my call back incorrectly several times, then he gives me a QSL
> without repeating my call., and moves on. Sure enough -- I am not in his
> log at all, I got a penalty because I logged the QSO based on what the
> other station sent. --Mike, WV2ZOW
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Ken K6MR  wrote:
>
> > It would seem that the additional penalty rule hurts the LP/QRP folks the
> > most: they are more likely to have marginal signals. If I have trouble
> > copying I’m more likely to declare NIL (or worse, not respond in the first
> > place) if I know that busting the Q would result in additional penalties. 
> > If I’m just going to lose the Q then it’s worth taking the chance. 
> >
> > Ken K6MR
> >
> > From: Alan Dewey via CQ-Contest
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 14:36
> > To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
> >
> > I don't have a problem with penalty QSOs. I just consider it part of my
> > contest strategy. How much time do I spend trying to get the call right
> > before just leaving it in the log and going on. If I knew I was going to
> > get
> > a penalty, I would spend a lot more time trying to get the call right. If
> > there was no penalty, I would be more likely to just go on (especially if
> > I
> > had a good run going) knowing the worst that could happen is that I would
> > lose the QSO. 
> >
> > I compete with a guy here in MN who has an extremely accurate log - often a
> > golden log. I know that I have to either minimize my errors or find a way
> > to exceed his score by a comfortable "buffer". This is a motivator for me
> > to do better. 
> >
> > As someone has stated, most penalties are imposed only when the CALL is
> > copied wrong. If you miscopy, say, the check in SS, you are going to lose
> > the Q but no penalty. 
> >
> > There is only one thing that bothers me about the penalty QSOs. If I
> > decided to delete the QSO (after several unsuccessful efforts to get it
> > right
> > due to QRM and QSB), it keeps me from being penalized but it ends up
> > penalizing the guy who thought he had made the QSO with me. I'm not sure
> > what can
> > be done about that. 
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Al, K0AD
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 4/13/2016 8:04:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> > kzerohb@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > In a contest you accumulate a score by contacting other stations,
> > correctly
> > copy their callsign and generally some other bit(s) of information, and
> > accurately transcribe that exchange to your log. 
> >
> > Having correctly copied and logged the required elements, you are
> > credited
> > point(s) and perhaps a "mult". 
> >
> > If you incorrectly copy the exchange, or finger-fault the log entry, then
> > you are not credited the point(s) or mult. 
> >
> > Without overly belaboring the obvious, your success as a contester is
> > directly proportional how fast and accurately you can fill your log with
> > "good" exchanges. Lower accuracy = lower score. 
> >
> > So what useful purpose is served by the retribution imposed in the
> > practice
> > of reducing the score further with an "additional penalty"?
> >
> > Do basketball players suffer an additional score reduction if they miss a
> > shot? Are points (already scored) deducted from a baseball team if a
> > batter
> > fails to get on base? Does a bowler forfeit points earned in the first
> > frame if they throw a gutter ball in the eighth frame?
> >
> > Just wondering. 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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