[CQ-Contest] A QSO or not a QSO

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

I have been setting back in the weeds just reading, compiling and
comparing viewpoints. I have noted points of community schizophrenia on
some issues. For starters, from the *same specific* posters, some number
of times:

<> 1) If it's not a QSO then don't log it. A QSO must be acknowledged,
"two way, period".

<> 2) Support for penalties only on the receiving end when mistakes are
logged.

If QSO's are "two way, period", then shouldn't penalties be "two way,
period".

Two-way is two-way, isn't it? If we really want a TWO-WAY contest,
shouldn't the credit or lack thereof be two-way as well? Shouldn't the
scoring philosophy revolve around two-way completion and not just give
it lip service when attempting to justify some aspect of the
rules/scoring?

If a station otherwise intent on run rate at any cost knew that not
managing the acknowledgements would COST HIM AS WELL, would we not start
to hear some attention to the little guy's "R" or lack thereof?

If a station otherwise prone to signing his call only once every ten
minutes knew that people were using inaccurate packet spots because he
never sent his call and that would cost HIM three points for every time
someone didn't get it from him, might we see more frequent call signing?

I HEAR two-way, but it's SCORED one-way.

Which is it?

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

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