Hello Glenn, hello Eddie and RTTY friends!
In spring, when the UBN records for last years CQWW RTTY contest
became available, there was a lively discussion about the validity
of certain zones in the UA9 call area. Many of us contesters had
faithfully logged what was being sent by RX9SR, RW9WA and UA9SP:
Zone 17. The logchecking software by comparing this against a
database (cty.dat dated Oct 2001) however determined this to be
wrong. No credit was given for such QSOs.
Glenn, at the time you maintained that everybody got fair treatment
as everybody had such QSOs removed from their score. The results
published in CQ Magazine, May 2002, pages 108ff however show that
the SENDERS of this zone 17 apparently got full credit for their
QSOs with the "WRONG" zone:
RX9SR 1178 QSOs, 1301616 pts, RW9WA 1098 QSOs, 1243284 pts.
In all contests that I entered in my 46+ years of hamming there has
been and is the one common rule: You must correctly log what is being
sent! All logs are required to contain this information, the log checkers
try to verify this. If they find a discrepancy you will get a reduction
(whatever) of your score.
Now: The "only problem" with the CQWW RTTY is that the logchecking software
does NOT check received<->sent exchange but against its database cty.dat.
However, as all cabrillo logs are amalgamated into one huge check file
all the required information (rcvd/sent exchange) is available.
My position on this issue is:
1) If logged exchange corresponds to recieved exchange -> good QSO;
In case of obvious gross errors ie. a KH6 station in KH6 land sending
zone 1 instead of zone 31 both recipient and sender deserve a penalty;
2) If the logchecking software cannot assure a check rcvd<->sent but
instead checks against whatever external database, then BOTH the
recipient AND the SENDER must get a penalty, if zone rcvd/sent does
not correspond to what the database "says".
Glenn, please let me - and others interested - know, what the policy
will be for the upcoming CQWW RTTY contest. Should we log what was sent
or manipulate our logs to please the database?
73 de Goetz
dj3iw@t-online.de
----- Original Message -----
From: "W6OTC" <w6otc@garlic.com>
To: "Waldemar DK3VN" <dk3vn@nexgo.de>; "RTTY Contest" <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: [RTTY] WPX RTTY Results
> On August 28, DK3VN wrote:
>
> more than six month ago we had the CQ/RJ WPX RTTY and the results are
> not out in the public! =:-(
>
> For the CQ/RJ WW RTTY we had to wait more than eight months for
> the public results!!!!!!! =:-(
>
> My reply: In 2001 and 2002, the results for CQ/RJ WW have been published
> each year in May CQ Magazine and the results for CQ/RJ WPX in July CQ
> Magazine. The results have also been published in The New RTTY Journal,
> Spring and Fall issues. For both contests, plaques are awarded to attendees
> at the May Dayton RTTY dinner sponsored by The New RTTY Journal, and
> thereafter mailed to others. WW certificates were mailed in May or June.
> WPX certificates are awaiting mailing now.
>
> 73, Glenn, W6OTC
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
|