It seems a shame that the scoring should irritate people to the point
of giving up. But I understand the feeling.
It's like big brother. Or your high school English teacher scoring the
contest logs. Or your mother cleaning out your ears. Or the IRS and
penalties.
There is an alternative:
TWO-WAY ACCURACY BONUS for each end of a qso with all elements correct
at both ends.
ADDED TO the scores by the log checking programs. No more penalties
except for DQ for the usual kinds of ugly, on purpose stuff. Zero
point busted QSO's.
Publish the bonus portion of the scores with the scores. Looks at
accuracy in a POSITIVE way.
73, Guy.
On Wed, 05 May 1999 14:19:48 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>> > >I think deleting three qso's for a busted call is too much.
>>
>> This is probably a correct statement. There should be some penalty
>> to discourage guessing. What I mean is that you should lose something
>> if you guessed wrong. The point is to provide incentive to either
>> get the call right - or don't log it.
>
>Back in the days of callbook QSO's in a log the idea of penalty points
>for usually nonexistant contacts made sense. In fact callbook QSO's
>still need the penalty.
>
>Unfortunately we are talking about cheating vs errors in amuch different
>category.
>
>I had 3 busted calls removed. One was K8OQL wher I had a zero in for the
>O, not an easy correction on some videos and adjacent keys. Another a
>double letter error, likely in typing as I should remember I can
>overtype this keyboard.
>
>I have already writen ARRL that my last contest submission has already
>been sent.
>
>After 35 years with a few entries per year, except FD and SS that have
>always been sent in, I am no longer going to participate in a level o
>computer crosschecking and penatly moves I consider ill perceived.
>
>Busted calls or missed exchanges can be disallowed, but additional
>penalties, no way.
>
>Penalties should be for intentional cheating, like listing a QSO with a
>person for a new mult and no such QSO in the opposite log or showing as
>a unique.
>
>Creating such harsh scoring examination is going to drive away new
>contesters an place the old weekend warior compaints of contests right
>back in everyone's faces.
>
>--
>
>
> 73, Bob Reed, W2CE
>
>===================================================================
> W2CE@prodigy.net W2CE@aol.com W2CE@juno.com W2CE@arrl.net
>===================================================================
73, Guy
--. .-..
Guy Olinger, K2AV
k2av@qsl.net
Apex, NC, USA
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|