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

Wed Sep 14 01:36:00 PDT 2011

Thanks Pasi and Tomi for your kopeks :)

If I may quote you Pasi?  "I can live with it, but I do not like it".

73 and keep up the pressure - will be needed ;)

RA/SM6LRR - soon SJ6R/3 for heating up purposes...

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

> 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
>