[CQ-Contest] QSO or not ... a better way.

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

A better way...

After reading about all the checking/discerning/human intervention that
has to be done to see if someone really deserves a penalty or not, has
anyone noticed that a penalty scoring system is INTRINSICALLY expensive,
NEGATIVE in feel and spirit, and very difficult to get precise?

Or that sometimes it's far simpler to REWARD correct behavior, than
PUNISH incorrect behavior? This is because the definition of correct  is
simple, where the definitions of incorrect and the threshold of
assessing penalties are complex.

WHAT IF...

Each party claims a log point(s) as now for a claimed QSO.

 BOTH parties to a QSO are awarded a completion point(s) ONLY when the
scoring program determines from the submitted logs that calls, "sent"
exchanges and logged exchanges are identical BOTH ways. (This is a
simple straight-forward concept.)

If  completion points are not awarded to the QSO, one or both log points
might also be removed depending on the circumstances and scoring rules.

If completion points are not awarded to the QSO, a multiplier (if the Q
is also a mult) may also be removed depending on the circumstances and
scoring rules.

THERE ARE NO PENALTIES, other than not receiving completion points when
it's not an accurate two-way QSO, and possibly losing the log point/mult
a claimed but ruled no-Q. The log point/mult removal rules can be
adjusted to offer some relief to a party not responsible for loss of the
completion points. In this case the party responsible for non-completion
would get no credit (no log point, no completion point), and the other
party would get half credit (log point only).

Completion points are not claimed by the log submitter. One's score will
go up, not down, because of the contest scoring program awarding
completion points.

Then accuracy figures can published with the score: % Qso's Awarded
Completion Points. A POSITIVE concept. 100.0% = ALL his log entries
matched the other guy's & vice versa. QACP can't be argued with over
interpretation. Either the log entries match or they don't.

Do this change to scoring methodology, and contesters will INVENT ways
to IMPROVE accuracy. It will never need to be preached again. It will be
discussed in the same vein as how to get more gain out of an antenna.

Imagine a classic article:  "How I managed 99.9% QACP" by W4 - - . Hams
will quote accuracy methods like they quote ON4UN beverage tricks. Hams
who spot incorrect calls on packet will get taken aside and have their
ears boxed. Supercheck partial may just fade away, too prone to error.

It'll never happen the way things are now.

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

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