At 01:59 AM 11/13/02 -0500, Lee Hiers wrote:
>The CQWW log-checkers don't claim 100% accuracy. They're too smart
>to do that. *I* certainly don't have the answer. I do know that it
>doesn't sit well with me when I'm on the receiving end of an
>"acceptable" injustice.
Seems to me that what Tree said was that the most important thing is
uniformity of treatment.
If you lose a mult when you are sure you had a QSO, but the QSO is not in
the other station's log, then there are a variety of possible explanations
reflecting culpability on the part of either station . In CQWW, without
serial numbers or any variable in the exchange, there's no solid way to
tell if he didn't log you, or you thought you worked him when he was
working someone else.
Which log-checking/penalty approach is chosen is always arguable, and can
evolve from year to year. It seems to me it's very important that we all
have a clear expectation of being treated the same at any given time. That
way, if the problem is, for example, stations that don't log domestic QSOs
in CQWW, we can put all sorts of social pressure on them to quit this
despicable practice.
73, Pete N4ZR
Sometimes a tower is just a tower
|