[CQ-Contest] SS scoring and points

[n5nj at att.net]

In general, I side with Tree on the way the logs are 
being analyzed and I really enjoyed finding out what 
mistake I made and truly appreciate the work he has done 
to make this all better.  However, I think Jim's point 
here is valid.  

In my log, 4.1% error rate, had 8 busted callsigns out 
of 1180 or so and I don't remember "guessing" at any of 
them.  I copied them wrong plain and simple.  It was not 
a conscious decison to do so, but an error in copying.  
In fact, in many cases, I asked for numerous repeats 
when I was unsure of the call.  In these cases, I should 
have been unsure but was not.  Does this mean that even 
when you think you have it right, you should check it 
again and ask for a repeat ?  Where would it end ?

Shouldn't just no credit be enough ?  I don't understand 
the penalty part any longer.  Having any of them removed 
is penalty enough for me.  If there is a log that 
demonstrates a wilful disregard for getting the calls or 
information right, then perhaps a penalty should be 
imposed up to and including DQ.

With the comprehensive system now analyzing the logs, 
anyone "padding" the log with bad QSOs will be caught 
and in my opinion should be DQed.  What's the threshold 
for determining when a guy is padding ?  I'm not sure, 
but I would think it would place him far above average 
in bad qsos.

73,
Bob N5NJ (ck 73)
--
N5NJ / V26O
Plano, TX USA
ex KR2J, V26RN, W6V, WA2OVE			
> 
> > I'm old enough (CK 64) to remember the 1 point  SS qso, although I can't
> > remember actually having had any such contacts.  I suspect that few people
> > claimed them, but rather put down whatever they thought they had copied
> > knowing that mistakes would never be caught by a logchecker with a desk
> > overflowing with paper logs.
> 
> I remember logging some of them and my check is "67".
> 
> > With today's computerized checking, dupes and busted calls can be routinely
> > and easily detected.  While high unique callsign rates may flag a log for
> > closer inspection, I see no reason for additional penalty qsos to be
> > subtracted for dupes or bad calls.
> 
> I think there needs to be some kind of penalty for any busted information.
> This provides incentive to either get it right, or not put it in log.
> 
> Without some kind of penalty, you have no reason not to guess, because
> the worst thing that will happen is that you just lose the QSO.
> 
> I am confident that this rule will be changed for next year, so there
> is some kind of penalty for any busted information.  Perhaps the 3 
> QSO penalty will be reduced for busted callsigns since the detection 
> methods are so much more efficient.
> 
> I also think dupe penalties for electronic logs make no sense.  
> 
> 73 Tree N6TR
> tree at contesting.com
> 
> 
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
> 


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