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

Wed Sep 14 00:42:41 PDT 2011

Hmmm... after second thought I turn to kopeks too. I vote like Pasi.

Actually this is also the way we are used to do it in our domestic contests.

OH6EI

Luoma-aho Pasi kirjoitti 14.09.2011 kello 10:35:
> 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