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

Mats Strandberg sm6lrr at gmail.com
Wed Sep 14 03:30:32 PDT 2011 

Hej Torvald,

I think personally that no changes should be done this year. It is WAY too
late...

I do not see the problem to loose a lot of points, if the vacuumcleaner is
removing the same type of non-valid QSOs in all logs. The average reduction
of points will most likely be similar to most big guns.

About the problem with people who do not send in their logs, this can easily
be solved by creating "synthetic" or "artifical" logs, where serial numbers
are predicted using the information found in the Scandinavian logs. It means
that you will already have an understanding of the likely QSO number
received from a non-scandinavian, by comparing with logs showing this
station before and after the qso in question. It is not a fool-proof method,
but gives enough support to judge whether a received serial number is likely
or not.

We should keep this dicussions alive according to my opinion, but it is the
task of the new SAC CC to handle possible changes in the rules, together
with our experienced HF Contest Managers in the four organizing countries.

This year, my opinion is that we play according to the old rules and use
your excellent log checking software based on previous interpretation.

73 de Mats LRR


2011/9/14 Torvald Lundberg <torvald at eurab.se>

> Hi,
>
> If we change the way the log checking is done I have to rewrite the log
> checking program.
> It's a lot of work done (many hours)  to be able to find errors in the
> logs.
> If it has to be correct in both logs, what to do with the logs that is
> not sent in for log checking.
> Now we can setup how many times each call should appear in all received
> logs before it is called Unique.
> Actually many errors is in the TX part of the logs like sent serial
> number being of by 1 or more.
>
> If we go the easy way and all have to be correct on both sides it is
> much easier to do the log checking.
> -- BUT! --
> Then many, even big guns, will loose a lot of points.
>
> 73
> Torvald
>
> Tomi Ylinen skrev 2011-09-14 09:42:
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > TOEC mailing list
> > TOEC at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOEC mailing list
> TOEC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec
>

More information about the CCF mailing list