Glad to see incremental improvement in contest rules, thanks Randy!
Just strikes me, ham radio "logic" vs. rest of the life logic.
Where in life do we have 3 times "penalty" for mistake, error,
innacuracy?
You answer question on test wrong, do you get "penalized" by taking 3
more
questions out (into negative score) to "teach" you?
You get speeding ticket, police gives you 3 times miles over the limit
to "teach" you? Etc.
As Don writes, it is the relic from paper log days, that some "ham
lawyer" figured
would be good thing to teach those slopy, cheating hams lesson.
Records, actually there are some old records that are inflated due to
old (non)checking
and are hard to beat with "penalizing" system of new checking.
Had that happen to me.
Problem with QSO with error? Just don't count it. Simple, logical,
normal!
Thanks for the small step for the hamkind!
Now, why do we still penalize large radio countries with ZERO points per
QSO?
Another relic from the distant past. With today's technology, SDRs, no
need for that,
make it more fair and give everybody 2 or 3 points per QSO.
As another example of ham radio "logic", back to MY skimmer (gadget)
being
classified as SOMEONE else (person) and treated as ASSISTANT.
Time to treat things as they are, not what they pretend to do. Where is
the borderline?
I am not getting into "extending mike and headphones" with remotering
and making business out of it and QST/ARRL promoting it.
Good luck in WPX!
73 Yuri, K3BU.us
www.MVmanor.com
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Don Field wrote:
I suspect the answer is actually quite mundane. When the 3:1 penalty
was
first introduced, log checking was still on paper and only a small
proportion of errors were actually detected (in any case, with paper
logs,
many participants didn't even send in logs as it was such a chore, so
those
QSOs couldn't be checked). So 3:1 was a way of making up for the
limited
checking that could be done.
Nowadays, with computer log checking, typically 70% or more of QSOs
get
checked, so fewer than half of any errors go undetected. On that basis
a
2:1 penalty seems entirely appropriate?
Don G3XTT
On 24 May 2013 04:15, Barry <w2up@comcast.net> wrote:
I was there. Randy said a number of guys were winding up with
negative
scores. That certainly doesn't encourage long term participation by
newbies.
Barry W2UP
_______________________________________________
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
|