Tree writes,
"My final point is to reassure everyone that not ALL of the errors in the
process will be fixed."
"I hope that most of you can see the big picture and realize that these
cases are just the price to be paid for having ALL of the logs checked using
the same process."
To which I find I must simply reply, "Say What?"
What ever happened to the concepts of:
"If you can't do it right, don't do it at all?"
-and-
"Before you take away a QSO in a contest, you need to *PROVE* it's a bad
QSO"?
My history in checking logs goes back as nearly as far as Tree's does; and I
rememember how, when the topic of computer log checking was first raised,
the fears of innaccuracies and people wrongly losing points was a great and
evil spectre that threatened the entire hobby.
And great and incredibly painful steps, at least in Newington, were taken to
assure that this never happened--that errors were checked and rechecked to
assure their accuracy. For it was felt that errors would invalidate the
entire concept.
Now, if I am to understand the above statements, not only do errors occur,
and are errors going to continue to occur, but we should just "deal with
it." And perhaps simply hold our peace.
Well, I'm sorry, but not me. If the CQ Committee is using a program paradigm
which is inherently flawed, and inherently will always have flaws, then this
concept of "checking every single log" vs "checking the 'comptetitors' for
fairness and accuracy', and verifying the veracity of their results" has
gotten far too out of balance, and the organizers have far lost sight of
their purpose, and raison d'etre.
I don't buy this explanation of "well, it didn't affect the overall
results."
If you don't have the resources to check every single log correctly, and
correct for errors, then don't do it. To penalize some incorrectly is to
cast aspersions on the intergrity of the entire process in ways too foul and
ungentlemanly to describe in a forum such as this.
I implore the CQ Contest Committee, and those to whom it answers, to rethink
this clearly ill-conceived and poory executed process to something more
closely representing a clear rationality towards all operators.
With malice towards none, but still, great outrage and umbrage,
Warren C. Stankiewicz, NF1J/K6KFC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|