I wish to clarify a recent posting by Dave, K4JRB, who selectively quoted
the following from a post of mine:
> 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.
Dave then began as follows:
>I don't agree with the notion that uniques are first in line to be cut.
>Vic Clark W4KFC worked several hundred uniques.....
This was taken out of context. I was not referring to uniques being cut,
rather that under a proposed accuracy bonus, uniques, for which the
contest sponsor has no basis to dispute or recognize accuracy, would
effectively be ``penalized'' in that although they may be perfectly valid
and accurate QSOs, they would not receive an accuracy ``bonus.''
My point was to argue against a bonus. Not to suggest uniques should be
cut.
--
73, kelly
VE4XT
ve4xt@mts.net
Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author. Gender-specific
pronouns used only for convenience. Your mileage may vary. In case of
discrepancy between these opinions and the REAL opinions of the author,
the latter shall prevail. May contain peanuts. Not responsible for lost
belongings. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|