On 8/11/99 15:27, John T. Laney, III at K4BAI@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>I, for one, agree with Dan, KL7Y. Let's do away with the penalty
>deductions. This still won't help the loss of the QSO points or the
>multiplier in the example given by Dan and I suspect that there is no
>way to avoid that problem short of everyone's sending in a log that is
>checkable by computer.
Dan makes a good argument, but there's probably still room for a penalty.
Perhaps its time to reduce it from 3 Qs, though.
Here's my thinking. Part of the motivation for having a 3 Q penalty for
NIL was that log-checking wasn't performed on all logs. As a manual
process, it wasn't possible to check every QSO in such detail. For this
reason, when NIL Qs are found, it can be assumed there may be additional
NILs that may be missed.
With computer checking, the situation changes. With even the smallest log
submissions are checked, then there's less chance that an NIL will be
missed. Of course, not every Q can be checked because not every
participant sends in a log.
So, I propose that the NIL penalty be changed from 3 to 1, in light of
the improvements in computerised log checking. (Which would mean that NIL
Qs would deduct 2 Qs, and BAD Qs deduct 1 Q).
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Boot, you transistorized tormentor! Boot!"
-- Archibald Asparagus, VeggieTales
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|