Igor
I guess one event probably influenced me most in my thinking about penalties
for badly copied calls. I won't name the individual concerned as my
thoughts relate more to principle than personality but:
While S&P in a recent major event, I called a very well known contest
station. Although he was very strong with me and I suspect I was with him,
it took three calls, in between which he called CQ, before I got a response.
When it came, the response was "Worked before". I replied with "Not in log"
and the station responded with "You copied my call wrong". I imediately
knew which contact he was referring to, as I had only logged one other
contact with his entity on that band. So I said, "You didnt correct your
call". He replied, "No, I get multiplier, you get penalty....Hi!".
This incident really showed up a weakness of a scheme which only penalises
the operator who incorrectly logs the call (or logs an incorrect call). It
could be argued that such a scheme might provide incentive for the
unscrupulous to fudge their own call when making exchanges with those who
might constiute serious competition.
Perish the thought, someone would actually do such a thing!
Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@r66.ru>
To: "Bob Henderson" <bob@cytanet.com.cy>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fw: Just when you think
>
>
> >What I can't understand is why rules in some contests only penalise
> the receiver for a badly copied call and not the sender. It seems
> >to me that if an appropriate exchange doesn't take place then
> neither should there be a valid qso for either party. If all
> contests >supported a scheme in which both stations had to correctly
> log calls and other exchange requirements for either to be awarded
> points >the emphasis on ID might be improved. (at least in contests)
>
> >Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
> _______________________________________________
>
> This is an interesting subject. What Bob said about penalizing both
> sides of QSO does make sense. There are two schools of thoughts. One
> is the CQWW and WPX where receiving side takes all the penalties. I
> was supporting this approach assuming that nowadays senders (well,
> most of them) use computers for perfect sending and therefore all the
> mistakes are on the receiving side.
> Another school of thought is widely used here in Russia for most of
> the contests (Russian DX contest excluded). It states that QSO is a
> two way road and if something is wrong in one of the logs, then
> correct exchange did not take place and both parties should be
> penalized. The latter approach, although it sounds true, does not
> take into account the fact that the motivation to be awarded points
> for QSO could be different with different parties. If I am just
> casual participant I do not care much about points an penalties.
> Sometimes these participants do not send in log at all and therefore
> all contacts with them should not be counted. Russian DX contest
> sponsors tried to partly compensate for that by creating "virtual
> logs" for such a participants and analyzing the probability of QSO
> using sophisticated algorithm.
> Anyway in the light of what Bob said, may be the more strict approach
> when both stations are responsible for correct exchange in both logs
> does make sense.
>
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|