CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty

To: Ken K6MR <k6mr@outlook.com>, "CQ-Contest@contesting.com" <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
From: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:16:21 +0000
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
And this.. specifically, as Ken points out so well, is why.. the single most 
extravagant reason why.. we don't have new contestants repeating appearances, 
and why.. some of the long term contestants aren't showing up any more...   
Why.. should I spend many hours in the chair.. optimize my station, and jump 
into a contest.. only to be ignored, over and over.. by the same station, that 
in other than a contest situation hears me just fine???  and no.. don't go 
getting all propagational either... that won't wash. .. unless you can prove 
one way propagation across the country, consistently, for a 6 to 8 hour period, 
over a two day span.
  Yes.. it hurts..   but to get to the heart of the issue.. playing the rules 
to improve  scores.. ultimately hurts us all worse. 

Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy


_

It would seem that the additional penalty rule hurts the LP/QRP folks the most: 
they are more likely to have marginal signals. If I have trouble copying I’m 
more likely to declare NIL (or worse, not respond in the first place) if I know 
that busting the Q would result in additional penalties.  If I’m just going to 
lose the Q then it’s worth taking the chance.

Ken K6MR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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