CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of

To: "Doug Grant" <dougk1dg@gmail.com>,cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Some thoughts on uniques, was: 99% of
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:46:08 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
At 11:02 AM 8/5/2008, Doug Grant wrote:
>...I think the algorithm is:
>
>Incorrect callsign: QSO removed, plus 1 additional QSO penalty
>
>Incorrect exchange: QSO removed, no additonal penalty
>
>Not-in-Log (you didn't have any of these, but two other log I looked
>at DID): QSO removed, plus 1 additional QSO penalty.
>
>In your case:
>
>7 (incorrect calls) x 2 = 14
>3 (incorrect exchanges) x 1 = 3
>
>TOTAL = 17
>
>I tested this algorithm on the two logs for which I have access to teh
>LCR report and it was perfect.
>
>And before you say it, yes, the penalties ought to be explained in the
>LCR report.

You bet it should, particularly since the above calculation is not 
consistent with ARRL General Rules.  Specifically, under Disqualification 
and Penalties, "In electronic logs, for each duplicate contact that is 
claimed for credit, each miscopied call sign or each busted exchange that 
is removed from the log by HQ, one additional contact will be deleted as a 
penalty."

73, Pete N4ZR




_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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