[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW support etc

To: "Alexander Teimurazov" <at@at-communication.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW support etc
From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 09:12:44 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>  We all humans and can make mistakes

Hello Al,

While I agree with the sentiment that we all make mistakes, those operators
who make fewer mistakes are better operators and should be rewarded.
Otherwise, you take accuracy out of the equation.

What removing penalties would mean, then, is that no attention needs to be
paid to such things as getting callsigns correct or getting the information
correct, since taking extra steps to do that would lower overall rate. If
the penalty was only to lose the bad QSO, then it would be in your interests
to blow out the doors on rate because you could more than make up for the
lost Q by working two or more guys in the time it would take to wait for a
fill. Having the penalty gives you an incentive to get it right.

If you're not in someone else's log at the time you say you worked him, you
didn't work him, so you shouldn't get credit.

Having accuracy as part of the equation is a good thing, since it can to an
extent equalize stations: being big isn't necessarily enough. Being big AND
good is still key.

73, kelly

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>