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

Wed Sep 14 00:35:09 PDT 2011

I give my 2 kopeks (still some left) to the 'Two perfectly received calls, two perfectly received reports and two perfectly received contest exchanges' style.

I don't salute rules that encourage some contesters to QRQ like maniacs, without any fear of losing their own points.  (I can live with it, but I don't like it.)

73 de Pasi OH6UM

>-----Original Message-----
>From: toec-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:toec-bounces at contesting.com]
>On Behalf Of Mats Strandberg
>Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:34 AM
>To: Tomi Ylinen
>Cc: ccf at contesting.com; Kim Östman; toec at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TOEC] [CCF] Q on SAC rules "ENN ###"
>
>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
>>
>_______________________________________________
>TOEC mailing list
>TOEC at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec