With the SDR's all around now where they can record the whole contest,
I feel if what has happened possibly here is suspected, a simple check
of the recordings, should show if they indeed just kept operating, and
then post contest removed the lower value contacts to benefit longer
operating time.
If this is found a DQ is a MUST, AND possible DQ for following year
Probation. Doing this is NOT a mistake, it is deliberate and MUST have
strong consequences.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/12/2017 4:29 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
So with this logic, it would benefit any Multis to break the 10 minute
rules all the time and them scrub the log with little X's and remove
the qso's that benefit them the least? Is that what happened in
2016? Will we ever know the rest of the story. Will these Multi's be
made public and asked to provide some explanations? If the Multi in
question had used little X's at least other participants would not
have been damaged while the multi get off scott free?
A golfer that attempts to hide a mistake will be DQed. They also have
very stiff penalties in the form of strokes that are added to their
score where winners and losers are decided by 1 stroke many many times.
Car racing you exceed the pit speed limit, you lose a lap. Good luck
winning. It can happen but not often
If you don't run the right course on a running race, you get a DQ.
Step over the line tossing a javelin and the toss does not count I can
go on for a long time about many other sporting competitions where you
are penalized for breaking the rules. Not in contesting. Sorry about
that 12 or 15 minutes of extra time, self spots, excessive power and
on and on and most just want to look the other way.
Should multi's that can't count to 10 be penalized 2 to 10 mults per
occurrence? You break the 10 minute rule by choice. It is part of
the game to get it right, just like copying callsigns. Using a little
X to make things right does not sit well with me. Maybe they should
lose 10 minutes of qso's on both sides of the mistake?
Brain cramps? Mistakes or calculated choices? That is hard to judge.
How about people follow the rules instead of giving people more ways
to game the game? The rules are pretty freaking simple. The only
reason people keep pushing the rules is that very little is ever
done. We can't embarrass our buddies, that club needs the points to
win, etc.
I have no empathy for those that can't managed to do the right things
and have a boat load of excuses why they broke said rules.
Are we to the point where we just give everyone the same certificate
to make everyone feel wonderful in radio contesting?
The unassisted guy the uses packet and then claims Unassisted and
scrubs a few packet contacts to make it look better with some cute
little X's?
Intentionally deleting contacts to avoid a 10 minute issue lacks any
integrity and honesty. I find it hard to believe that people would
support it.
Self spotting? Who cares. People build skimmers and put them at
friends houses or at their own to get spotted on CW and RTTY. What is
the difference? We had a huge discussion about this and I think most
people seemed to agree that limited self spotting would actually
benefit the contest.
To allow people to break the rules and then just allow them off the
hook with an X in a log is a total joke and insults the rest of us
that can read and follow the rules.
W0MU
On 4/12/2017 10:54 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
(This is directed at the thread, not to counter anything written by
K3ZJ)
The X-QSO tool is a sound practice of correcting for brain cramps. I
do not believe anyone would want a big multi-op station’s entire
weekend ruined by inadvertently screwing up the 10-minute rule or
misjudging when to get back on after a mandated break period. X-QSO
allows for that, as you are not claiming credit for QSOs made in
violation.
Golf is one of the most-scrutinized ‘honor’ sports there is, to the
point viewers on TV can even spot violations and notify organizers by
email. However, even if such violations prove true, the golfer’s
entire tournament is not necessarily lost: a penalty is applied for
failing to claim a stroke and a further penalty is claimed for filing
a false scorecard.
However, if the golfer identifies the violation and records the
appropriate penalty before submitting the scorecard, all is good.
This can happen at ANY TIME before submitting the card — at the time
of the violation or after holing out the 18th. Either way, the score
still counts, even if failing to record a penalty carries very
punitive consequences.
Is the X-QSO not the same as saying, “Hey, I moved that ball before
striking it, so I’m taking the penalty stroke.”?
The scenario raised features an unassisted op working a bunch of
packet spots and then marking each as X-QSO. This is interesting, but
I don’t see the point, since X-QSO means the QSOs don't count at all:
you don’t get the QSO points nor do you get the multipliers. It’s in
the log so the people you worked don’t pay for your mistake, but you
gain no benefit from the QSOs.
73, kelly, ve4xt
On Apr 12, 2017, at 6:13 AM, David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com> wrote:
To be clear in context and for *most* contests, for mono band
(single band)
entries, there is no need to use the "X-QSO" function for QSOs on a
different band. Assuming that your single band category is correctly
identified in the cabrillo file, all QSOs on a different band (1)
will be
disregarded for purposes of your submission but (2) counted for the
correspondent station. The "X-QSO" function is to remove QSOs from
your
score within your category that otherwise would be included.
73, Dave K3ZJ
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net>
wrote:
This will depend on the contest. For CQWW, the other station should
receive
credit for the QSO.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Voelpel [mailto:dj7ww@t-online.de]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:38 AM
To: k5zd@charter.net
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
Hi Randy,
What happens to the other station?
I had two QSOs in CQWW 2016 marked with X on a different band
while doing
mono band.
Both qsos are listed under "Stations Receiving Not In Log From
DJ7WW".
Their public logs show them both.
73
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of
Randy Thompson K5ZD
Sent: Mittwoch, 12. April 2017 12:19
To: john@kk9a.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
The Cabrillo specification does allow for this. See
https://wwrof.org/cabrillo/cabrillo-specification-v3/
X-QSO: qso-data
Any QSO marked with this tag will be ignored in your log. Use to mark
QSOs made that you do not want to count toward your score.
This tag was created to give people a way to mark a QSO as not
counting
and not have to remove it from their log.
Note: Not every contest may accept this tag, but it is recognized
by the
major contests.
Randy, K5ZD
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf
Of john@kk9a.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:45 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
Is there a way to have some unclaimed QSOs in a cabrillo file?
John KK9A
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
From: "Dick Green WC1M"
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:31:33 -0400
I was advised to do that by K3EST for the 8P8P CQ WW SSB M/S log
when
we discovered that a bug in our logging software caused us to make a
significant number of QSOs outside the 10-minute window. This was
back
in the days when log scrubbing wasn't as strongly discouraged as
it is
now.
I don't know what the CQ WW CC would advise today.
73, Dick WC1M
_______________________________________________
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
|