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

Tue Sep 13 23:34:15 PDT 2011

If majority decision is to approve correctly received 50% of the QSO as a
valid QSO, then I am ready to obey the majority decision :)

It surprises me that so many well-experienced contesters are so happy about
old-fashioned and Low Quality American standards for log checking and
penalties....

A complete QSO is defined as:  Two perfectly received calls, two perfectly
received reports and two perfectly received contest exhanges!

These are my 2 kopeks of input :)

RA/SM6LRR, Mats

2011/9/14 Tomi Ylinen <tomi.ylinen at luukku.com>

> I would say that most important is that the agreed rules are the same for
> everyone and stay the same each year.
>
> In SAC history we have seen various kinds of judgements, even raw scores
> have been put out as final results, without checking.
>
> Now that in Sweden good log-checking software has been created, we
> hopefully can lean on it every year in the future.
>
> To that respect now is good time to discuss the penalties and reductions.
> Better before the contest than afterwards.
>
> Tomi OH6EI
>
> PS: My vote goes for US style, reductions only from receiving errors.
>
>
>
> Mats Strandberg kirjoitti 13.09.2011 kello 20:58:
>  > 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
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>