[CQ-Contest] Dupes and computer logs

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

Well...  Sigh...

 <> I don't need to be lectured on the difficulty of log
checking/handling software. I know that full well. I have 35 years of
programming experience, and a GREAT APPRECIATION for those who write it
and put up with the vagaries.

<> I don't need to be lectured on how many hours the volunteers put in,
as if I didn't know that, or didn't appreciate it. I have decades of
volunteer service in various capacities myself, and DEEPLY APPRECIATE
those who put in all the free hours. I think without volunteers this
country would come unglued.

<> I'm not griping about accuracy penalties due to not being able to
submit a reasonably accurate log myself. You can find me toward the
front of some of Bob's accuracy honor roll lists. I just really DESPISE
aspects of the current penalty system of scoring and think it ought to
be changed to something with a positive bent.

One thing in particular burns me up, and the W7WHY example doesn't
illustrate it. Let me explain.

I get in the CQWW. That's my choice. It's a great contest. (I'm trying
to get an adjustment in how things are scored, NOT complaining about the
contest. Those are two quite different things.)

I'm on forty meters, and as always happens, someone with the proverbial
wet noodle antenna is returning my CQ, in and out with QSB up and down,
copiable in between static crashes. For me it's usually an eastern EU
station with an obviously limited station.

I think I've got him. Then I send his call, and he comes back sending
again, and I'm not sure I hear it the same. I go through the cycle again
several times. I have OK7XYZ written down twice and OK7XYG twice. THEN,
because I've been spending a lot of time with my 1500 watts NOT
transmitting, listening to try and get his call right, N$%##& with a
better location, a tower, a beam, and no manners, dumps on my frequency
and starts calling CQ. I can't keep the frequency.

I don't get to tell XYZorXYG no QSO, even if I wanted to. We've been
splatted.

NOT my fault. Not OK7XYZorG's fault. We didn't do anything wrong. it's
N$%##&'s fault.

Don't tell me you've never had that happen to you. (Or maybe the station
you operate is so good that you hear 'em 599 even if they're running a
light bulb for an antenna.) It always seems to happen anymore when I try
and pull a really weak one through. It happens a lot. So what do I do
with the QSO and the contest log entry.

No disrespect intended, but you (the contest committee) DON'T get to
decide whether OK7XYZorXYG gets that QSO. That's MY decision. He sends
me a QSL card with the right band, time and either one of those calls, I
send him one back. I say he counts. He gets the card. It WAS a QSO. It
DESERVES to be a QSO, for the insult if nothing else.

All you get to do decide is whether you will count that QSO in your
scoring rules.

I KNOW YOUR RULES SAY IT DOESN'T COUNT. THAT'S WHAT I'M FUSSING ABOUT.

I'm perfectly willing to ZERO-POINT (or ???) the QSO, to point out that
I don't want to claim credit for it or the multiplier (if it was one).
I'M NOT TRYING TO CHEAT.  But the little guy deserves his point, NOT A
PENALTY.

Since we're all into cop analogies in this thread: A little old lady is
crossing the street in the crosswalk, on the green. A car comes along,
runs the red light and runs over the little old lady. The light turns
red for the crosswalk. A cop comes along and writes the little old lady
a ticket for being in the crosswalk after the light turns red.

AND, to boot, the way it works now, apparently, if I leave it in as is,
XYZorG gets his points, and I get penalized, maybe not. The cop says
it's not a QSO, and I catch you, you get a ticket. I really think that
stinks. BUT I'd rather the little guy gets the points. So stuff the
rule. So I leave it in and take my chances on the penalty.

According to the rule, I'm supposed to UN-log the guy.  You're picking
on the little guy who just worked his first NC on forty meters and wants
a card. Why ELSE would he try so hard to get the QSO? Sure doesn't help
his rate. Some of you tried to justify the rule by saying that exchange
was not a QSO *PER SE*.  Rubbish. You may be on the contest committee
and can write the contest scoring rules, but you don't get to decide
*PER SE* for the rest of us.

Do you have any idea how NEGATIVE and NARROW the rule sounds?

This is a hobby. Therefore the contest is a hobby. It's supposed to be
something we do for fun. That's the way the CONTEST is. The *CONTEST* IS
fun. I send in my log so the radio club will get whatever points make it
through. Then I compare this year's *raw* score with last year's *raw*
score to see if I'm getting better. I'm always TRYING to be accurate,
that's never an issue. TRYING is 99% of getting accurate. W4KFC was
incredibly accurate long before UBN's or computer log checkers were
around.

Then we get to the scoring rules debate itself. Listen to words and
concepts being used in these posts to justify the status quo.

   perpetrator   --   normally describes someone arrested for a crime
(as in robbery, rape, murder), before they are convicted.   Overstated
talking about a hobby contest?

   compared to getting a traffic ticket --- Cops give tickets because
the behaviors being ticketed lead to accidents, property loss, injury
and death.  Overstated talking about a hobby contest?

   cheaters   ---  OK7XYZorXYG and I didn't cheat. If anything, N$%##&
who splatted our frequency did.

   penalties  ---   The ham contest scoring rules have some aspects
quite unique in the sporting world.  In sports penalties are usually
assessed for breaking rules, almost entirely for doing things which can
result in injury or attempting to obtain an unfair advantage. The ham
contest scoring rules assess PENALTIES for MISTAKES. In football,
throwing a pass caught out of bounds (a mistake) just means you don't
get the yardage, no penalties, the play counts (in the log) and the time
is off the clock. In the ham contest scoring rules, mistakes SHOULD just
mean no points. EXCESSIVE mistakes are another matter. Brings other
issues into play.

Let's try this. Two things:

 <>  In the OK7XYZorG affair, I leave my best guess at the call in the
log and mark the entry ZERO POINT or NO-Q-CLAIMED (an "X" in the points
column ???). I do not get QSO or multiplier credit. If  OK7XYZorG has my
stuff correct, and the log checker considers XYZ's call "close" to what
I logged, then XYZ gets his points. All these concepts are already in
the programs. All that is missing is the agreed upon CONVENTION to
notate NO-Q-CLAIMED.

 <>  As to penalties: none assessed, until "excessive" starts to become
a reasonable description. That could be progressive: Bads don't get any
QSO or mult credit. 0-1 percent bad, no penalty, next percent (1-2) gets
1 QSO penalty, next percent (2-3) gets 2 QSO penalty. All the rest get
three QSO penalty. NO-Q-CLAIMED's don't count in the claimant's log,
don't add to the claimant's bad count.

 If you think about it, this may be one way to cut down on submission of
"scrubbed" logs. Do your best to be accurate. If you think you maybe
didn't get it, NO-Q it for the other guy's sake. When the contest is
over, have a little faith in yourself, and just send it in. A fairly
accurate log won't cost you much, and you can STILL look at the UBN to
see what you screwed up and didn't catch.

 73 and may you blow away your personal bests this fall.

Guy


- - . . .   . . . - -     .   . . .     - - .   . - . .

73, Guy
k2av at contesting.com
Apex, NC, USA











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


>From Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at dialup.mplik.ru  Sat Sep  9 04:06:35 2000
From: Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at dialup.mplik.ru (Igor Sokolov)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 09:06:35 +0600
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Dupes and computer logs
References: <043801c018df$cda52620$1810a8c0 at ae327> <00a601c01a02$e6c4fc60$0300a8c0 at cruncher>
Message-ID: <000f01c01a0a$fca8f420$c6a0fea9 at dialup.mplik.ru>


>    penalties  ---   The ham contest scoring rules have some aspects
> quite unique in the sporting world.  In sports penalties are usually
> assessed for breaking rules, almost entirely for doing things which can
> result in injury or attempting to obtain an unfair advantage. The ham
> contest scoring rules assess PENALTIES for MISTAKES.
With all the respect Guy I use to play volleyball. If you touch the net
there you are penalised for your MISTAKE.If the ball lands out of the play
ground - you are penalised. There are a lot of sports where MISTAKE leads to
PENALTY. In biathlon that involves skiing and shooting for instance you get
few hundred meters extra for every missing shot.


>  <>  As to penalties: none assessed, until "excessive" starts to become
> a reasonable description. That could be progressive: Bads don't get any
> QSO or mult credit. 0-1 percent bad, no penalty, next percent (1-2) gets
> 1 QSO penalty, next percent (2-3) gets 2 QSO penalty. All the rest get
> three QSO penalty. NO-Q-CLAIMED's don't count in the claimant's log,
> don't add to the claimant's bad count.

That is just a different progressive scale but still the same principal is
maintained.
I think the flat scale is good enough and much simpler. And nobody penalise
for 0 point contacts so if in doubt just put 0 points there and that is it.

73,
Igor, UA9CDC


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