Here's another example:
I call CQ and get an answer. The caller sends his call wrong, and I call
what he sent. If he doesn't correct it, who gets dinged? I think I do,
even though I didn't make the mistake.
That's one of the reasons I stopped reading UBN reports.
73 Steve K0SR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Ferch" <ve3iay@rac.ca>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Operator error
> The case under discussion is not at all the same as miscopying IL for IN,
> for which no-one is arguing that the log checking should not be strict.
>
> The point here is that the station on the other end copied correctly what
> was actually sent. The problem is that what was sent was not what was
> logged. The error was made by the sending station, and yet according to
> your logic the receiving station should be penalized.
>
> How can this happen? Very easy. You are running and I am S&Ping. I call
> you, you send me your exchange, I send my exchange back and log the QSO (a
> single keystroke does both with some software; or, it could be that I am
> just over-eager and press Enter to log the QSO a bit too soon - my
mistake,
> not yours). My software increments the serial number displayed on the
screen.
>
> My exchange was hit by QRM, QRN or QSB so you ask me for a repeat. I look
> at the number displayed on my screen and send you a repeat serial number,
> but it's the wrong one. That's entirely my mistake. You copy correctly
what
> I sent, log it, and send your QRZ? message for the next QSO. Someone else
> with a stronger signal calls you, and even if I realize what happened
> (there is no guarantee of this) and try to correct my mistake by calling
> you again, it is too late.
>
> Now if I recognize my mistake (which is certainly not always the case), I
> may be able to fix my log to record the QSO with the re-sent serial number
> in the Cabrillo file (indeed, this is an example where post-contest
> manipulation of the log may be the ethically correct thing for me to do!),
> but I won't be penalized if I don't.
>
> Maybe that turns my honest mistake (sending the wrong number by accident
> and unknowingly) into a crime (knowingly misrepresenting what I sent in my
> log), but either way there is nothing you can do about it. Indeed, you
> don't have the slightest inkling that it has happened. Nor is there any
> indication the log checkers can use to determine that I did not send what
I
> logged.
>
> There is absolutely nothing you have done that warrants a penalty, but if
> our two logs disagree and the log checking is strict, you are the one that
> will be penalized for miscopying what my log says I sent. If the log
> checking is not "dumbed down", there will be a miscarriage of justice and
> you will be the unsuspecting victim.
>
> 73,
> Rich VE3IAY
>
> >Dave,
> >
> >I can't imagine this being true. Either the exchange is right or it's
wrong.
> >
> >Following that logic if I work another station and he copies me as K9GY
> >(sorry, Eric) he'd get credit for it because it's only off by one letter?
> >
> >....and copies my QTH as IL instead of IN. That's only off by "one".
> >
> >I hope the League hasn't dumbed down log checking to this extent
> >
> >Sounds like log checking by the firm of Clinton & Kerry.
> >
> >Hmm, maybe we could change the contest name from Sweepstakes to MIStakes.
> >CQ MS, CQ MS.....
> >
> >What fun....
> >
> >K9GX
> >
> >Elizabeth, IN
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|