That was my point. It is silly to talk about log accuracy when we know that the
results don’t necessarily reflect what actually occurred. Certainly things are
much better than they were in the old days. But mistakes are going to be made.
Production of the contest results are really no different from the production
of anything: “Quality, Speed, Cost: pick two”.
Ken K6MR
From: Helmut Mueller<mailto:helmut@photo42.de>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 05:16
To: 'Ken K6MR'<mailto:k6mr@outlook.com>;
ac0w@charter.net<mailto:ac0w@charter.net>;
cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
Hi Ken.
Quote: "Lots more work for the sponsor. But if everyone is serious about
accuracy it will need to be done."
This is a great demand, but who is going to do it? You want to ask "somone" who
spends 200+ hours on logchecking to simply double his private spare time to
400+ hours just to prove what? You have 5 less qsos being deducted? Have you
ever tried to find volunteers spending hundreds of hours on something painful
like this? Getting the blame at the end because they deducted to much QSOs?
I remember a quote (was it Randy?): "We are here to find the correct order of
participants, not the correct numbers". (something close to this)
CQWW SSB has 8200+ Logs. Let every participant pay 25$ to send his log, than we
have the time and money to spend for more accuracy.
73
Helmut
df7zs.de
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag von Ken
K6MR
Gesendet: Friday, 15 April, 2016 6:05 AM
An: ac0w@charter.net; 'cq-contest@contesting.com' <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
They have already moved to confirming both sides: recordings. Now that
recordings are mandatory for the big guns, if you are serious about your score
you don’t have any choice but to record.
What needs to happen (if the contest sponsors are serious about accuracy) is to
send LCRs prior to the results being posted and allow stations to cross check
the LCR with the recordings. If the receiving station can prove that the data
copied was indeed what was sent then no penalty to the receiver. Then the
penalty can be assessed against the sender.
Lots more work for the sponsor. But if everyone is serious about accuracy it
will need to be done.
Ken K6MR
From: ac0w@charter.net<mailto:ac0w@charter.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 19:15
To: 'cq-contest@contesting.com'<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
Ed,
Your very last line points to a key critical element "a successful two way
QSO". A successful two way QSO requires both a sending station to accurately
send and record that information along with a receiving station to accurately
receive and record that information. There are plenty of times when then
sending station either inaccurately sends information or inaccurately records
the information sent while the receiving station accurately records that
information. Because the information in the two logs do not match and the
receiving station is assumed guilty and penalized despite the sending station
being the guilty party.
To make matters worse for the innocent receiving station that is penalized, the
guilty sending station gets to receive credit for the QSO.
This is where I have the issue of a penality, the station the caused the error
is not always the one that gets the penalty. Now I don't have the solution on
how to properly penalize the station making the error, to me it is just morally
wrong to assume people are guilty and penalize them for what sometimes is an
error by someone else.
Now maybe some other old timers will remember this (guess I fit that
group) some contests use to have in their rules the reason a QSO was worth 2
points. 1 point was for accurately sending the information and
1 point was for accurately receiving the information. I'm suspect this was
dropped at some point in time when they realized there is no way to determine
if the information was accurately sent or not.
I'm fine with a penalty as long as the proper station is penalized.
Until then we need to return to what our legal system is based on, "innocent
until proven guilty".
BillAC0W
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:36:14 -0700
From: "Ed Muns"
To: "'CQ-Contest'"
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Not every contest imposes penalties on incorrectly logged QSOs, beyond losing
credit for the QSO. Contests that do impose penalties are simply requiring
higher accuracy, in balance with speed and quantity. It's just a rule.
Radiosport is unique compared to basketball, baseball, bowling and most all
sports because competitors must work together as a team to complete a
successful two-way QSO with each other.
Ed W0YK
_________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
|