[CQ-Contest] Apr wpx and busted q

Guy Olinger, K2AV k2av at qsl.net
Thu May 6 17:17:42 EDT 1999

On Thu, 6 May 1999 05:40:36 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>Guy Olinger, K2AV writes:
>> There is an alternative:
>> TWO-WAY ACCURACY BONUS for each end of a qso with all elements correct
>> at both ends. 
>> ADDED TO the scores by the log checking programs. No more penalties
>> except for DQ for the usual kinds of ugly, on purpose stuff. Zero
>> point busted QSO's.
>> Publish the bonus portion of the scores with the scores. Looks at
>> accuracy in a POSITIVE way.
>I do not see how this is any diffrence than the
>current system.

Currently there is nothing that rewards for both directions being
correct. If I shortchange the other guy while I'm running and he can't
get back to me for corrections, I loose nothing. I identify
infrequently and cause call sign problems at the other end, I don't
get penalized, he does. If I get the bonus only when BOTH he and I are
correct BOTH ways, maybe I take some interest in practices that also
improve the other guy's chances.

Also, maybe not yourself, but a lot of people are PEEVED at the
negative flavor of penalties. Why NOT cast something positively if we
can? World is full of negative stuff.

>When I went to school there were some teachers that
>scored tests by starting at 100 points and taking
>points AWAY, others started at 0 and ADDED points.
>I guess one method could be said to be positive and one 
>negative but I don't think many of the students 
>were fooled into thinking these were any diffrent.

Agree with you on school exams.

>George Fremin III                 

73, Guy
--. .-..

Guy Olinger, K2AV
k2av at qsl.net
Apex, NC, USA

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