Yes, it’s silly. And remember I’m not advocating for the revised rules. I’m
just trying to interpret them.
I think your “note on paper” example technically would qualify as an edit
because you used it to correct the log that will be submitted. It doesn’t
matter whether you made a mental note, scratched it down on paper or used the
log program Note feature. Re-entering the QSO would fail that test as well. The
intent of the rule appears to be that you cannot make any corrections to the
log that will be submitted once the QSO is completed.
I agree with VE4XT that “QSO is completed” has not been defined. Is that when
the runner sends TU? Is it when both parties have hit Enter on their log entry?
Or is it when you’re satisfied that the log entry matches what was sent and
received (which is really what the committee should be concerned about when it
comes to edits during the contest.)
Re-entering the QSO might work. Then it’s a dupe and the log checker will use
whichever version is correct. In fact, you may have found a way around the
whole silly thing. The new rule doesn’t explicitly state that you can’t *add* a
QSO after the fact. However, I suppose the committee could rule that this is
technically a violation because the intent is to correct a previous entry.
The case you describe where the other station comes back later and corrects his
call or exchange is different. I think you can finesse that one by creating a
duplicate log entry because it really does qualify as a new QSO – the
information has been sent and received again. Also, you had to take the time to
complete a new QSO. However, I think *all* of the information would have to be
sent and received again to qualify as a new (duplicate) QSO.
Note that regardless of the above, as long as your log matches a hypothetical
broad-spectrum recording of the contest, there’s no way the committee can tell
that you changed a QSO – during or after the contest. So, in that sense it’s an
unenforceable rule that seems completely unnecessary in light of the fact that
the logging rule clearly establishes that what’s in the log must match what’s
sent and received. That, in theory, is actually enforceable.
Who cares if you corrected a typo during the contest? It requires time to do
that – time that takes away from completing another QSO. You make an error and
have to correct it, and you pay a price.
Corrections after the contest are another story. Like I said, the old version
of the rule, perhaps updated to remove “of confirming QSOs”, makes sense to me:
No editing of the log after the contest. Period. In fact, it would be much
simpler to simply have a rule that says exactly that. I have long felt that
editing after the contest extends operating time, so it shouldn’t be allowed.
By postponing an edit and running another station, you gain an advantage. Also,
it opens the floodgates to post-contest corrections based on databases, email,
reflector posts, packet/RBN history, etc.
Now, like a lot of this stuff, it’s not really possible to verify whether the
edit took place during or after the contest, as long as it matches the
recording. But I still think it needs to be a rule that you can’t edit after
the contest. Rule IX.9 used to say almost that.
73, Dick WC1M
From: Jeff Stai [mailto:wk6i.jeff@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:25 AM
To: wc1m73@gmail.com
Cc: Dennis McAlpine; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed rule changes
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Dick Green WC1M <wc1m73@gmail.com
<mailto:wc1m73@gmail.com> > wrote:
The rule says no “Correction” of logged entries. Converting the log to another
format isn’t the same as correcting the log. Heck, when you tell the log
program to output the log in Cabrillo format, it does a conversion from its
internal format. Converting from paper to electronic is similar, though you are
making additions. IMHO, additional entries are not the same as corrections to
existing entries. So I think you would be OK entering the paper portion of your
log after the contest, as long as you don’t make any corrections to the paper
or electronic log. Again, it’s not a change in the information, just a format
conversion.
OK, so please follow me carefully... Recall I typed the wrong thing into the
computer, but then scribbled the right thing on to paper before moving on to
the next station which is calling me right now.
The information on my paper is a superseding paper log entry. When the contest
ends I will merge the paper log back into the computer log by converting to the
computer format. It's just as correct to call this a merge as it is to call it
an edit.
But if that is objectionable... in the same situation I have been known to
simply re-enter the entire QSO correctly right after the incorrectly recorded
QSO. This is a behavior I have not been penalized for in the past. Should I now
be penalized for this?
Similarly, it is not uncommon for a station to come back two minutes later and
call me again to correct the exchange - they sent me the wrong exchange. I log
this new QSO. It now sure looks an awful lot like my re-entered correction in
the previous paragraph. How will log checking tell the difference?
This is all getting very silly, isn't it? 73 jeff wk6i
--
Jeff Stai ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com <mailto:wk6i.jeff@gmail.com>
Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
Facebook ~ http://www.facebook.com/twistedoak
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|