[CQ-Contest] Re: Two way bonus

[Jon Ogden]

>> given BOTH stations ONLY when a qso is completely accurate 
>> BOTH ways.
>
>Not if I have a vote!
>
>I want to be graded on my skills, not on some dufus who can't copy
>my Flawless Fist (tm).

Yes, but Hans, part of making a QSO and part of operating skills is 
making sure the guy on the other end has your info.  I can send code far 
faster than I can receive and using a computer I can really fly.  So does 
the fact that I can send so fast and perfectly make me a good operator if 
no one can copy?  I am going to the extreme here to illustrate the point. 
 Having a good signal and sending perfectly is not all that is necessary, 
even if you can copy at 100 wpm.

We have no idea of a person's receiving conditions on the other end.  
Just because he can't copy your tx doesn't make him a dufus.  Perhaps 
someone stepped on your transmission and you were QRM'd.  How can you 
know that since you were transmitting at the time of the QRM?  Perhaps 
there was a huge amount of QSB so he copied your call as K0SB instead of 
K0HB.  The fact that he didn't get your info correct may or may not have 
anything to do with his copying ability.

So making sure that a message is received correctly is as important as 
sending it correctly.  And on the receiving end making sure you copied 
correctly is just as important.  It reminds me about the movie (I forget 
the name) on the submarine with Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman.  
Denzel wanted to make sure the message was received correctly.  Hackman 
didn't care.  The difference was no nuclear war or nuclear war.  What if 
in our current situation in the Balkans if a message was sent "Stop 
bombing civlian targets."  Yet the "dufus" on the other end copied "Start 
bombing civilian targets."???  The differences can be profound.

So it is encumbent upon a good operator to make sure his message is 
received properly.  Making a QSO is more than just sending your info.  
Most operators do make sure that the other station copies them correctly. 
 They should be rewarded for that.  That is the essense of Guy's 
suggestion.

I ramble on.  Sorry.

73,

Jon
KE9NA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Amendment is NOT about duck hunting!


Jon Ogden

jono at enteract.com
www.qsl.net/ke9na

"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."

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


>From Jim Pratt <n6ig at netcom.com>  Mon May 10 21:19:33 1999
From: Jim Pratt <n6ig at netcom.com> (Jim Pratt)
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 13:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] W4AN on super duper
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990510144248.0073f2c8 at popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9905101314.A10213-0100000 at netcom18>


On Mon, 10 May 1999, Pete Smith wrote:

> As always, hard cases make bad law, and SCP is a good example of pushing
> the envelope.  I can go either way, and it might even be interesting to
try
> changing the rules of one or more established contests to outlaw the
> technique, just to see what that does to scores, error rates, etc.


That contest has already taken place...the 1996 WRTC.  SCP databases were 
not allowed;  in fact, the judge for each team looked at the computer's 
files to make sure there were no databases resident.  The results are 
still available for that contest, including the "unique rates", and make 
for interesting reading... my "error rates" for recent contests are in 
line with the "unique rates" of my WRTC team.  In fact, the WRTC unique 
rate was lower than recent error rates using SCP.  I guess I should 
conclude that SCP hurts me and I should dump it from the computer!  ;=> 

73, Jim  N6IG


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