[CQ-Contest] penalty: long reply

[Patrick Barkey]

DougKR2Q at aol.com writes:

>> Dear Whiners, Truth-Seekers, Misinformed, and other interested
parties:

Doug,

This isn't getting us off on the right foot.  People are participating
in this debate because they care about the welfare of the contest.  So
lets put away these kinds of characterizations.

In a world where logs are checked carefully, there is always an
incentive to copy calls correctly.  The question as to the 3 for 1
penalty in the WW is to how strong that incentive should be.

3 for 1 clearly is strong enough to cause many to change their
behavior, as is witnessed by the UBN rates for the top logs, etc.  The
question is whether is it stronger than necessary.  The question is
especially relevant given the penalties long life at its present
level, over a time period where resources and technology of log
checking both have been greatly enhanced.

There already is precedent for reducing penalties in the face of
changing technology.  In the old days, it used to be 3 for 1 below a
certain threshold (can't remember what it was - 2 %?), after which it
was 10 to 1.

I personally am not comfortable with a situation where a top operator
loses 6 percent of his score, with the majority of that reduction
coming as a result of penalties.

This opinion (and that's all it is, my opinion) has nothing to do with
the sanctity of records, of which I honestly think too much is made.
There are, after all, special circumstances of almost every contest
season which make inter-year and certainly inter-decade comparisons of
scores moot.

I just don't like the idea of docking good QSOs from entrants logs,
when many of them have practically poured their whole lives into
making those totals as high as possible.  I'd feel better with a
penalty of less than three.

   - Pat
     N9RV



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