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

[VR2BrettGraham]

N2MG added:

  Let's face it, the log checking can only do so much (how many busted QSOs
  did it NOT catch?) and often is at the mercy of the quality of the senders'
  logs. Some log checking tries to weed out the "unstable" logs - perhaps
  your example can be used to make the next revision(s) even better.
  In the meantime, your example is a case to remove points from the
  currently-presumed-*good* log as well as from the *bad* log.

There are no doubt more busted Qs in my logs than are found, but what's
deemed to be bad or NIL & is disallowed (with or even more so without
penalty) should be something that truly deserves deducting.  I must admit
I take this stuff seriously.

I only reviewed those Qs K8CC flagged & I feel I should point out that Dave
had identified such "unstable" logs this year: one Q he had allowed was
where I worked a guy once & he didn't log correctly what he'd sent but I
did; we worked again & I busted his exchange.  Dave allowed one between
the two & although the recording shows what happened the first time, I
have to admit I feel the Q should not have been allowed on the basis of
what he had to work with.

This & the two Qs I mentioned in my post are about a fifth of what I lost,
for nothing other than copying what was sent.  The checking process
might suspect instances such as the above of my three examples, but
for that one it was only a suspicion & the other two there is nothing
other than my recording against the sworn entry of the other guy.

How does the checking process address these two situations?  I'm all
for righteous UBNing, but I haven't a clue how it might be done here.

Applying a penalty to the other guy as Mike suggests seems
reasonable, but it must be done fairly, just like when the same is done
for my mistakes.

73, VR2BrettGraham


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