[CQ-Contest] ...the bottom line is VERY obvious

[Gilmer, Mike]

I4JMY wrote:
> Contesting is also precision and quality, not only speed and 
> approximation...
> 
Yes. The bottom line tactically may be COPY WHAT WAS SENT, but
strategically, it's BALANCE.

What more effective log checking has done is to change *slightly* the
balance an operator has ALWAYS had to apply to his time.  You used to be
almost *rewarded* for guessing at calls rather than spending time asking for
a repeat (don't want to break that rhythm).  Not anymore.  Even lower tier
operations are subject to a semi-complete audit.  What can be so bad about
that?  (Perhaps for the sponsors who get to hear a lot more complaining.)


K8CC wrote:
       My personal technique is to COPY WHAT WAS SENT, 
       but then apply my contester's smarts to it - that is, I 
       CORRECT IT IF THE ERROR IS OBVIOUS. 

BALANCE again - when to operate as an automaton, blindly following the rules
because "rules are rules", and when to be an intelligent creature applying
"smarts" and determining what the rules really *mean* - the so-called
spirit.

Computer game manufacturers spend a lot of time tweaking the "balance" of
their various critters and objects (how strong they are, how hard they are
to kill, etc.) in attempts to make the games feel "right".  I consider
fuller log checking a relatively small balance tweak, but an important one
in perception.  No, it doesn't catch packet cheats or QRO cheats, but no
longer must anyone "worry" much about padded logs, or sloppy, cavalier
operators gaining an advantage.

73
Mike N2MG


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