[CCF] [TOEC] Q on SAC rules "ENN ###"

Tue Sep 13 11:52:51 PDT 2011

Hi,

I think Toni outlined the perceived cons of the RDXC approach
well, namely the felt unfairness of being penalized for somebody 
else's various mistakes.

Now as for the QRQ approach, I think it also has its pros and cons :)

Personally I don't think it's optimal to think that it doesn't matter
what the other station copies, as long as "I get my points". Because 
the other station will care that they get their points, and many will 
repeatedly ask for repeats until they get it right. In the end, you can
thus simply lose in rate to someone with a more reasonable CW speed. 
Not to mention the stations that simply get scared away and never 
reply but that will reply at more reasonable speed.

Well that's my two (euro-)cents worth.

73
Kim

  _____  

From: Mats Strandberg [mailto:sm6lrr at gmail.com] 
Sent: 13. syyskuuta 2011 21:29
To: Toni Lindén
Cc: Kim Östman; ccf at contesting.com; toec at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CCF] [TOEC] Q on SAC rules "ENN ###"

The adjustment of the speed to that both QRQ BIG GUNS and the QRS small
pistols can copy both the call and the exchange is a thrilling challenge
that requires quite awake operators... so I am not so sure if it so easy to
say that "I am not responsible for the other stations miscopying"....

I personally do not see the "CONS" in the Russian school of log checking....
and also not the advantages in the US approach.  Can someone enlight me a
bit? 

73 de Mats

2011/9/13 Toni Lindén <oh2ua at oh2u.com>

Hi All!

There's two sided on this one.

I agree with Mats and "Mats way" is the way what e.g. Russian DX
Contest and WRTC uses. So good contact is a contact where both
stations logs the QSO correct.

On the other hand, some might say that one cannot be in responsible if
the station he's working is not getting the exchange or call correct.
This is the typical approach of North American organizers (CQWW,
CQWPX...).

I can't say what's the right way (and I guess there's not "the right
way"), but either of methods have pros and cons.

One the first one can the QSO be OK if other party have logged wrong
callsing? But how can I make sure that he have copied me correct if
I'm calling CQ and he's coming back to me. Or how can I be sure that
exchange is correct. Of course I can send as slow as possible and try
to be clear. But still, can it be my responsibility that someone on
the other side of the World copies me correct?

One the second one I can send code with 50WPM and "just let it go",
just how Mats pointed out. But accuracy of my log is on my hands in
this approach.

Well, never mind. Just know the rules and play according them ;)

73 de Toni, OH2UA

2011/9/13 Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr at gmail.com>:

> Hello Kim!
>
> Thanks for adding the FAQ to the rules section.
>
> Both answers were clear and there is no confusion anymore about what
causes
> a penalty.
>
> For this year, it is just to play according to the rules....
>
> HIGH speed, make sure to copy the other station's call, RST and serial
> number, and take a micronap when you send your 599 ### to the other
station.
> If your speed was too high, there is a chance that the other station will
> ask for your call or serial number again. If no questions, don´t worry -
he
> might have got your call, the report and the serial number ok - or not...
> For you, it does not matter, because no penalties as long as "you are in
the
> log".
>
> My only question is... how many letters of my callsign must the opposite
> station have copied correctly for me "to be in the log"?  A few missed
> letters obviously does not matter, as long has he is in my log correctly.
>
> This can not be a proper way to check contest logs in the 21st century,
when
> automatic cross-checking of all QSOs is quite possible...
>
> 73 de RA/SM6LRR, Mats
>
>
>
>
>
> 2011/9/13 Kim Östman <kim.ostman at abo.fi>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've added a brief "Frequently Asked Questions" part after
>> the official rules at http://www.sactest.net, covering this
>> and another question that was received. I'm copying the
>> text also here below and hoping that it clarifies the matter.
>>
>> 73
>> Kim OH6KZP
>> --------------------
>>
>> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
>>
>> Q: Do special prefixes such as OZ700 or OH25 count as their own
multipliers
>> for non-Scandinavians?
>>
>> A: No. The example prefixes count as OZ7 and OH2.
>>
>>
>> Q: How is a log penalized in the logchecking process?
>>
>> A: You lose all points (and the multiplier, if applicable) from a
specific
>> QSO by miscopying the other station's callsign ("Busted"), RST, or serial
>> number ("Exchange error"), or by not being in the log of the other
station
>> ("Not in log"). However, any multiplier lost in this manner is
compensated
>> if there is a later correct QSO that gives the same multiplier. You do
not
>> lose points for a copying mistake (call/RST/nr) made by the other
station.
>> ---------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ccf-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:ccf-bounces at contesting.com] On
>> Behalf Of Ilkka Korpela
>> Sent: 12. syyskuuta 2011 20:14
>> To: ccf at contesting.com; toec at contesting.com; oh6kzp at sral.fi
>> Subject: [CCF] Q on SAC rules "ENN ###"
>>
>> Hello all
>>
>>   I have been wondering about the strategy concerning my SAC operating.
>>
>>   Namely, one thing always to consider is your TX speed, and how to abb-
>>   reviate the numbers, to make communication faster.
>>
>>   Now, if you do it OH8PF-style (a concept from the 1980s, early 1990s),
>>   the speed is very fast, extremely fast. This assures high rates.
>>   This strategy is very good, if you are not sanctioned for errors in
>>   the other log.
>>
>>   Now, I expected the rules to say something about the accuracy checking
>>   and about the way (math) score is reduced by incomplete QSOs. They
don't
>>   seem to. I know that there is SM2EZT's software to check the Qs, but
what
>>   are the (implicit, explicit) logics in it? I.e. the rules on valid
QSOs?
>>
>>   We also have the PU! accuracy trophies. They will be based on relative
>> (%)
>>   score reduction. How are Qsos, points and multipliers lost in SM2EZTs
>>   software?
>>
>>   Or am I just, as usual, missing a point/web-page somewhere?
>>
>>   BR ilkka, OH1WZ
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ilkka Korpela
>> http://www.helsinki.fi/~korpela <http://www.helsinki.fi/%7Ekorpela> 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCF mailing list
>> CCF at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ccf
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TOEC mailing list
>> TOEC at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CCF mailing list
> CCF at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ccf
>