At 11:10 5/13/99 -0700, W6TKV wrote:
>The actual scores of ARRL November Sweepstakes CW
>entries from amateurs who used zero-land call signs
>will be lower than the figures set to appear in June's QST.
>While nearly all logs eventually are subject to some downward
>adjustment in score from the "raw" score submitted, this did
>not happen for entrants who used tenth-district call signs.
>
It may not appear to have much impact at first glance, but
for the top 10 multi-op scores, it is a major screw up.
The results show that K0RF is number uno, but dollars to
donuts, I bet K4OJ really won it for a third straight year.
The results show zero land operators won the first 4 out of 5
spots without score reductions. It is possible that K5MDX & W4MYA
were bounced unfairly out of the top 10 placements because of
this fiasco.
Even the placement between the zero land operators amongst
themselves and considering the hard work and preperation of all
the top ten participants, corrections printed in 6 point type
in a future qst is little conciliation.
Sincerely,
dr. bafoofnik
p.s. I'm leaving on the 6 o'clock stagecoach for zero land
to operate the next contest.
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>From Guy Olinger, K2AV" <k2av@qsl.net Fri May 14 00:42:48 1999
From: Guy Olinger, K2AV" <k2av@qsl.net (Guy Olinger, K2AV)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Busted calls, SCP and technology
Message-ID: <001b01be9d9a$4fb15a20$add6fea9@mahopac>
>
>Guy,
>
>I must say that I respected your positive outlook on scoring, but I think
>this point could also be made. Whether you see the glass as half full or
>half empty, the amount of water in it does not change.
>
>I see no difference, other than psychology, between a bonus and a
>penalty. Error-prone operators will still be penalized while more
>accurate operators will be rewarded.
Not in that sense, no. On the other hand, how can you work a penalty that
gives a two-way accuracy bonus equivalent?
>
>It is also a tad unfair. Currently, if I get on for five minutes and
>work, say, you and nobody else, my Q in your log still counts. If my
>effort resulted in only one Q, and I fail to send in a log, your Q with
>me will be tagged as unique. Since there is no way to verify the accuracy
>of unique QSOs, and many uniques are indeed valid and accurate Qs, there
>is no way to apply your accuracy bonus.
>
>I see the net effect being to penalize ops whose skill allows them to
>encourage non-participants to call. In many contests, these ``not in the
>contest, just thought I'd help'' QSOs differentiate the winner from the
>runner-up. Especially when the Sunday blahs hit in SS.
Well, first of all, it's a *bonus*, not a penalty, the basic points you got
for that Sunday afternoon qso, you get to *keep*. If it was a multiplier,
you get to *keep* the multiplier, as long as one of the *penalties* doesn't
kill it.
It is true that the accuracy bonus will not apply to certain kinds of qso's
*for anybody*.
It's not the Sunday afternoon per se, that removes it from bonus
possibility, it's that the fellow (probably?) isn't going to send in a log.
When you get right down to it, he's only a non-participant if he doesn't
send in a log, and anybody that doesn't send in a log is a non-participant.
The rules allow you keep your basic points and a possible mult. This applies
anywhere, not just Sunday afternoon. If the Sunday afternoon guy sends in a
log, then you have just as much a chance for the bonus as on any other Q.
Maybe this would encourage you to encourage him to turn in a log and get his
call in QST or CQ. Maybe give him the contest bug. Sounds positive to me...
Further, is this really any different than spending your spare time in the
WPX scrounging up one-pointers? You don't get the big Q points for them, but
they count. Not as much, but they count, and if you find a new prefix, it's
a mult. The only thing that can take it away is a *penalty*. Two way
accuracy bonus is better, because if the one-pointer sends in a log, you
might get *another* point, if you both got everything right.
>
>I think it's great you've floated this idea. It's generated good
>discussion. Be that as it may, I can't support it.
I hope you reconsider.
>
>--
>73, kelly
Likewise, Guy
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|