[CQ-Contest] claiming credit for a KNOWN busted call?????

[DougKR2Q at aol.com]

In a message dated 97-11-23 09:49:05 EST, W4AN wrote:

<< I didn't read the rules before making this post.  But I dont think you 
 are required to make sure he logs you correctly.  It's just the right 
 thing to do. >>

DISCLAIMER: The following statements are my own opinions and are NOT intended
to be taken as a representative view of any group or committee that I may be
associated with.  END DISCLAIMER

Fellow Contesters:

A number of stations have commented with something to the effect that, "it's
not in the rules, so I don't need to do it," so I feel duty-bound to reply.
 And let me start off by saying that Bill is certainly correct in that, "It's
just the right thing to do."

Saying "where is it in rules" is most amazing.  Where does it say in the
rules that you should ANSWER the stations that call you?  Where in the rules
does it say that you should call others after they call CQ or QRZ?  Where
does it say that YOU have to copy ANY calls correctly?  It doesn't say it;
it's COMMON SENSE!

This is called an IMPLIED RULE.  IMPLIED RULES are very common and can be
found in the US Constitution, state statutues, work policy, etc.  There are
ALWAYS BOTH expressed AND implied rules.  The presense of a Law stating that
you have the right to sue for "invasion of privacy" IMPLIES that you have the
right to privacy.  Having a work policy that says you will be docked 15
minutes pay after being 5 minutes late, IMPLIES that you should BE ON TIME!
 Having a rule that says "dupes will be deducted with a penalty of 3:1"  I M
P L I E S   that you should NOT count dupes!  When you pull into a parking
lot with lined spaces, why don' t you just park in the center of a lane?
 There is NO sign saying, "don't park in the center of the lane."  It's more
like, "uh DUH!  don't park there!"  It's IMPLIED!

As my old (perhaps I should say 'long time') friend, OH2BH said to me more
than a decade ago at Dayton, somewhere around 2am, [and I'll paraphrase a
bit] "A qso is like a marriage.  You cannot have a real marriage with only
one party playing by the rules.  Equally, it is vital that BOTH participants
in any contest exchange copy the information CORRECTLY.  If not, then there
is NO qso."

More recently (within the last decade) it has been stated clearly and
numerous times that it is YOUR responsibility to make sure that the OTHER GUY
copies your information correctly, if at all possible.  Sure, there are times
when you "can't tell" and then you have to decide whether or not to log that
qso....will you be able to sleep soundly knowing that you did NOT CONFIRM
that the other guy got it correct.  HOWEVER...that is entirely different than
KNOWING that the other guy got your call/exchange wrong.  If and when that
happens and you log it, you are KNOWINGLY counting a qso that did NOT take
place!

Just watch and see and you will note YET AGAIN, that after the CW contest,
there will be comments on here about how the HOT SHOTS send the exchange at
50wpm and IS THAT RIGHT CUZ ALMOST NOBODY CAN COPY IT!  One of the pro
arguments is that the HOT SHOT is simply making an informed decision to work
more guys per hour, realizing that SOME of the qso's (hopefully not too many)
may be lost cuz the 'other guy' copied his call wrong.  This is a balancing
act that takes place all the time.  Is 20 wpm too slow?  Is 50 wpm too fast?
 What is "just right" ON AVERAGE?  Where is the optimal point of gaining more
qso's per hour vs losing qso's per hour?  Where do the two graphes cross?
 But ALWAYS, the entrant is aware of this trade-off...that SOME of the
contacts may be lost!

The reason contesting is NOT broadcasting is because of the two-way,
INTERACTIVE nature of a qso.  Any student with ONE business course under
their belt can tell you that a vital part of COMMUNICATING is CONFIRMING that
what you sent (the message) was correctly received...it's in EVERY management
textbook ever published.

In conclusion, more people should rely on common sense, what Bill called,
"the right thing to do."  For technical issues, check out the rules.  For
stuff that is non-technical and NOT in the rules, check out "what's right."

de Doug KR2Q

DISCLAIMER: The previous statements are my own opinions and are NOT intended
to be taken as a representative view of any group or committee that I may be
associated with.  END DISCLAIMER


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com