QAA08839
Sender: owner-cq-contest@contesting.com
Precedence: bulk
X-List-Info: http://www.contesting.com/cq-contest-faq.html
X-Sponsor: W4AN, KM3T, N5KO & AD1C
Dear Contesters:
I see it is once again time to complain about having your contest efforts
actually looked at, corrected, and (oh my god) even penalized.
All of this is old news, but here it is again anyway:
1. In any contest, you are either serious or not. Note that "serious" does
not only mean, "top ten."
2. If you are not serious, then you shouldn't care about corrections to your
log, so don't complain because you don't care anyway, right?
3. If you are serious, you should want your score to reflect your true
effort. If you don't want your score to reflect your true and actual
effort,
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHY NOT!
4. Equally if you are serious, you should want the scores of those listed
around you (especially ABOVE you) to be accurate representations of THEIR
actual effort. You wouldn't want to "lose" to someone who had a bigger
score
falsely achieved, would you? If their score should be checked and
corrected,
then so should yours.
5. Newbies who do not know the difference between the keyboard letter "O"
and
the numeral zero are the same as a newbie who can't tell the difference
between the morse characters S and H when sent at a speed greater than
he/she
can copy. If they copy it wrong (because of lack of skill or knowledge),
they should not be given credit. If you chose to use a keyboard, it is your
responsibility to know the difference between OH and ZERO. Next time
around,
you will know the difference, right? So this should be a one-time
"problem."
If you are shocked at a 3:1 penalty (or whatever) and think it is too great
for such "an easy" mistake, then you have lots of motivation to get it
right.
If you repeat the error, it's your fault, not the contest sponsor. Like
the
man said, if you dial the letter O instead of the numeral zero, you lose
every time.
6. Reverting back to hand written logs is an ignorant (YES, IGNORANT)
suggestion. Hand-written logs were (and are) indeed scrutinized. If the
log
checker (because of poor handwriting) could not discern a letter, the QSO
did/does NOT count at all.
7. Other typographical errors ARE ERRORS and COUNT AS ERRORS. When you
choose to use a keyboard, you are accepting the fact that you can make
typos.
For THE MAJORITY of the QSOs logged, it is a big advantage. But every now
and then, you make a typographical error. This is the same as making a
copying error. If you feel that this is unfair, simply don't key in your
log?. and don't take advantage of instant scoring, don't take advantage of
dupe checking, don't take advantage of multiplier checking, etc. Your
choice. There is a downside to most things in life?virtually nothing is
purely gain without some risk of loss.
8. The use of databases (during or after) a contest by an entrant really
makes me laugh. This includes "check partial," "super check partial," and
certainly the use of official government-type databases (and call books).
This is supposed to be a test of YOUR ability?not the database's ability.
IMHO, the use of a database to "help" with call signs is a cop-out. If you
can't copy the call yourself without help, ore feel that you need the
database as "verification" (gimme a break), then the QSO didn't take place.
If you are prompted with the "exchange" information as well (CK, STATE,
NAME,
POWER, etc.), then part of the skill that the contest is testing is being
falsified. Either you copied the call and exchange correctly or you didn't.
You shouldn't need outside help. Since no contest (that I am aware of) has
yet to prohibit databases (before, during, or after), this is a matter of
personal honor and ethics. I look forward to the day when this is banned
(but I'm not holding my breath).
9. I've noticed at least one posting saying that the relative positions of
finish did not change due to "corrections" while there is at least one other
posting saying the opposite (N4BP). As a log checker for (ugh) decades with
the CQWWDX, I have seen huge flips in position, even from fourth place to
FIRST place, all due to "corrections." I'm sure the CLAIMED first place
guy/gal didn't like the corrections, while the new OFFICIAL first place
winner must have loved it. And even if positions do not change, it's nice
to
know that the logs are being checked FAIRLY and EQUITABLY and that the
scores
actually mean something.
10. There have also been comments that looking at ACCURACY (of copying AND
logging - which includes the ability to TYPE if you chose to type) somehow
detracts from the "true" effort of running and finding mults. Look
guys/gals, the sponsors are saying it clearly?ACCURACY is important. If the
sponsors are TELLING YOU that besides QSOs, and MULTS you need ACCURACY,
then
it is up to you to INCLUDE that in your strategy. If you choose to ignore
accuracy, then expect the consequences as clearly outlined by the sponsors.
11. Should accuracy be ADJUSTED by post-contest editing? I don't think so.
In CQWW DX, post contest modification/changing/alteration of calls is not
permitted?period. Each contest is of a fixed duration and THAT is the time
period when your skills are tested. Checking and then CHANGING calls AFTER
the contest means that the entrant is taking on the role of the contest
sponsor, that is, JUDGING (adjudication) of the effort. There is no other
competition (that I am aware of) where the entrants are permitted to MODIFY
their effort after the event is over. And the event is over when the
contest
period (during which the effort is actually made) ends.
12. By the way, getting back to check partial and derivatives thereof, if
just blows me away when I check a log and find that an entrant busted the
call of the same mult in the same way on several bands. CLEARLY he busted
it
the first time, and then each time it was "worked" later, he simply COPIED
what had been entered before. Yes sir?those self-made databases on line are
a big help?.leaves ZERO doubt who is lazy and not bothering to copy
calls?.some "savings" of effort, huh? Good Bye many qso's (x3) and needed
mults. Well, at least the log checker enjoys it as break and a reason to
smile after long hours of a thankless job (smile at the stupidity, not the
enjoyment of a found error).
13. To you new or casual contesters who read this stuff, you should keep in
mind the source of the comments. How many of the negative remarks about log
checking or scoring or "unfair" competition come from those who regularly
submit their logs or score in the upper ranges of entrants? Of the
THOUSANDS
of entrants and reflector subscribers, what PERCENTAGE of them complain?
What percentage of them actually stop contesting? About 15 years ago, I
posted a question (packet) inquiring about brand "A" filters for my Kenwood
rig (instead of the stock filters already in place). I received about 25
replies with 21 of them being glowing or favorable. That sounded convincing
until I "filtered" the replies. Just WHO replied? Were they contesters
that
scored well or just "Joe Hams?" When I restricted the replies to big time
contesters, there were only FOUR. And ALL FOUR said their experience showed
that it wasn't worth it. Needless to say, I didn't go for the filters. Get
my drift? When K1AR or N5KO or N5TJ or W9RE or "Mr. Yuma" start
complaining,
then I'm sure all heads will turn and pay attention. Until then, take it
from where it comes and apply appropriate weighting.
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|