The WPX has a 2 QSO penalty for busted calls. Missed exchanges or other
errors only lose the the one QSO.
We can make the penalty more if that's what everyone wants. :)
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tonno Vahk [mailto:tonno.vahk@mail.ee]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:47 PM
> To: 'Randy Thompson K5ZD'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking
>
> Randy! I have to clarify. I absolutely appreciate the efforts
> of making WPX a better contest and I am not saying there is
> anything wrong with the log checking.
>
> I am saying that one can log as much rubbish as he wants
> without being penalized as the only thing you lose is that
> particular contact. And that is a bit sad about it. So if you
> get delusional by the end of the contest and start hearing P5
> pile up then you can just as well log them without risking
> much:)
>
> As I remember it has become known that in CQ160 contest DX
> QSOs have been logged by stations who never actually worked
> the DX, maybe just hoping that DX does not send log and they
> get credit (which they have probably got). So I don't like
> that motivation of logging stuff just in case in any contest.
>
> So I am afraid K3BU is not entirely with me on that but let's
> introduce 3 QSO penalty in WPX as well!:)
>
> 73
> Tonno
> es5tv
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Randy
> Thompson K5ZD
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:25 PM
> To: 'Tonno Vahk'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking
>
> I hope my friend Tonno was just making a joke about logging
> rubbish in the WPX contest. It may have been that way in the
> past, but I can assure you the level of WPX log checking is
> quite high now. We cross checked over 95% of every QSO of
> every log received for both callsigns and exchanges!
>
> The RDXC does do a great job of log checking. It was one of
> the contests that I looked to when considering what to do for
> WPX log checking.
>
> I apologize for making the comment that stations who are not
> serious should not submit logs. Every contest sponsor wants
> to obtain as many logs as possible in order to improve the
> overall log checking. It is important for participants to
> understand that log checking in contests like RDXC and WPX
> have high standards and depend on everyone playing the game
> at their best.
> With the computers doing the work, every log is scored and
> checked exactly the same way, so it is completely fair. No
> one likes to lose any QSOs due to mistakes or circumstances,
> but statistically these are down at the noise level in
> determining the order of finish.
>
> 73,
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
> PS - Efforts in both modes of WPX 2008 from Tonno's station
> had some of the lowest error rates of anyone in the contest!
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tonno Vahk
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:03 PM
> > To: 'Robert L. Shohet'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I don't agree that ignoring weak stations and CQing instead is a
> > fruitful strategy for an ordinary station in any contest.
> You have the
> > luxury to do that from DX location with constant pileup
> maybe but not
> > from US or EU. It's pretty simple - you either are able to get the
> > call or not and in any contest you should make sure you get
> the call
> > right if you want to have positive Expected Value out of
> it. Of course
> > you can get away with logging rubbish in WPX and not being
> penalized
> > and I don't like that about WPX at all.
> >
> > Even if the caller is weak you can almost always take 30 seconds or
> > even a minute trying to get it right and you can always ask for
> > confirmation to be sure you have it. If not then not, too
> bad. If you
> > are even 80% sure in the call then you can log it as you
> have positive
> > EV despite 3 possible penalties. I never ditch any caller in any
> > contest even if he is almost unreadable. It just does not
> make sense
> > to waste QSOs in our location. Lazy ops lose.
> >
> > I think RDXC has the best log checking and best designed penalty
> > system for sure. Being strict it does only good to the
> general quality
> > of contests and the hobby and by all means, if the QSO is
> not mutually
> > correct then why credit it.
> >
> > As mentioned before, the fact the you can get away (and you have
> > motivation to do it) in CQWW without correcting your call even when
> > you hear that the DX got one character wrong is not nice.
> >
> > I have been heavily penalized in RDXC by having Russian
> stations copy
> > Victor as W as it is their nature to do so.
> > Well, I can't complain and have to figure out how to get my call
> > through to them and it is really my problem as well not only theirs.
> >
> > See you in RDXC and please give me a call, even if you are a small
> > pistol!:)
> >
> > 73
> > Tonno
> > ES5TV
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
> > Shohet
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:52 PM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking
> >
> > WM5R said:
> >
> > On aggregate, you are no more likely to lose points because
> of other
> > ops'
> > copying
> > errors than your competition is likely to lose point
> because of those
> > same ops'
> > copying errors. Unless you are somehow more likely to attract the
> > flakes on
> >
> > the air
> > than the stations you are competing against, it doesn't put
> you at a
> > disadvantage.
> >
> > Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > Negative! K7GK makes an excellent point. In addition, these rules
> > and penalties also mean that those who would otherwise dig
> deep into
> > the crud and qrn to work the weak low power stations now
> have a true
> > disincentive for doing so.
> >
> > If I can work S5 and up stations with 99.9% accuracy, but
> only maybe
> > 88% accuracy with S4 and lower stations, I have no reason to even
> > consider working weaker
> >
> > guys
> > since the error rate will almost cancel out most of the ones I get
> > right - this is especially true since I am **also** penalized by
> > stations that miscopy my call and exchange!
> >
> > It is much easier to save the "wear and tear" and to just call cq
> > again and hope for someone louder to call me. Some Multis
> already use
> > this "strategy" when they are running EU and an SA station
> calls them
> > off of the side/back of the antenna.
> >
> > I have read
> > several past posts from PY's and LU's on this reflector and 3830 in
> > the past
> >
> > complaining
> > about this.
> >
> > So you ARE at a disadvantage if you try to work everyone
> compared to a
> > lazy op who doesn't care. I don't see how this helps anyone. It
> > means those that work harder at making q's can potentially wind up
> > with a lower score than those who just
> >
> > ignore
> > weak guys and push "F1". The weaker stations are the
> biggest loser of
> > all since even less people will make the effort to work them. In
> > addition, I also lose if I am weak and try to call a
> station in RDXC
> > who is more interesting in avoiding penalties than gaining
> qso points!
> >
> > Bob KQ2M
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|