N4KG: Re: [CQ-Contest] post contest log corrections

Richard L. King k5na at bga.com
Sat Jul 4 19:02:30 EDT 1998

At 06:24 AM 7/4/98 -0600, you wrote:
>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>From: N4KG
>To: dlevans at hsonline.net
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] post contest log corrections
>Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998
>On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 03:57:04 -0000 "Dan  Evans" <dlevans at hsonline.net>
>>Whoa!  Talk about putting someone on the spot!!
>>Dan, N9RLA
>And why NOT?
>Lots of guys worked the BIG  M/M stations in the CQ WW
>for the Zone and/or Country multipliers but found THEIR
>scores reduced when the M/M operators failed to log
>their ZERO point contacts.  Seems to me the wrong guy
>got penalized.  Maybe it's about time the log checkers
>and sponsors were held accountable!  The participants
>have a RIGHT to know how the rules are going to be
>intrepreted and enforced BEFOREHAND.
>de  Tom  N4KG
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>How about a new rule that penalizes or disqualifies
>anyone who demonstrates a pattern of NOT  LOGGING
>ALL  CONTACTS  (in particular, ZERO point contacts)?

I agree. The CQWW has dug themselves into a hole over this. The situation
has been created by a combination of two things. 

First it is possible for a QSO to occur in CQWW where one station gets
point credit and the QSO is a waste of time for the other station. Of
course the second station doesn't bother to log it. 

And second, the UBN reports come out and penalize the station who made the
QSO because they needed to make the QSO for point credit and they are not
in the other log. Before the UBN reports, nobody seemed to care but now it

The CQWW really needs to fix this?

73, Richard

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list