[CQ-Contest] Dinged Good QSOs

[Ed]

George Fremin III - K5TR wrote:
> If you get two logs - and the bands do not match up on a QSO
> how do you tell whom made the error?
> 
> In Tree's example you could assume that the single band entry
> is in the right but, how do you know?  You don't.
> 
> What if they were both multi band logs - who would lose the QSO?
------------------------

If they were multi band logs, I would have to go along with Tree. But,
the example he submitted stated specifically that one log was a 10
meter only log. If I'm in the 10 meter contest and someone logs me on
15, I do not expect to lose the contest.

73
Ed


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


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Wed Aug  1 05:22:10 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:22:10 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Dinged Good QSOs
References: <20010801022218.10291.cpmta at c002.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <026201c11a41$8900c510$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


In America we have a legal premise to punishment -- innocent until
proven guilty.  In the case of log checking it appears that has been
rejected in favor of guilty unless proven innocent.  I find this
anti-logic of the perfect law giver -- one of them is lying but one
must be telling the truth so both shall be put to death -- to be
beyond understanding.  It places into doubt the whole premise of
checking the logs in the first place.

If the data logged in a log sheet cannot be proven incorrect beyond
reasonable doubt, the contact should be given credit.  In this case
both contacts must count until it has been proven that the QSO was
actually on a particular band.  Then only one may be discredited.

When I hear the argument that applying the same set of criteria to all
the logs entered in a contest simultaneously results in equal score
reduction, I can only argue that applying a more sensible set of
criteria to all the logs will result in equal score comparisons as
well, and without placing the log checking process into doubt.  That's
right, I believe that the efficacy of the log checking process is
placed in doubt when the highest standard isn't applied against the
log checking software rather than being applied against the entrants.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Gilmer - N2MG" <n2mg at contesting.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dinged Good QSOs


>
> On Tue, 31 July 2001, George Fremin III - K5TR wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 05:28:21PM +0000, Ed wrote:
> > >
> > > Tree N6TR wrote:
> > > For example, I recently had feedback that a QSO was NIL in a
single
> > > band
> > > 10 meter log because the other station logged the QSO on 15
meters.
> > > While it is pretty obvious what happened and where the fault
lies,
> > > there is no way for the log checking program to know all of the
facts
> > > and be able to "do the right thing".  In this case, both parties
will
> > > lose credit for the QSO.
> > >
> > > Tree
> > > ----------
> > >
> > > I believe this is the sort of thing which is creating
controversy.
> > > It's pretty obvious the 15 meter log entrant made the error, and
> > > common sense as you point out should rule here. But to penalize
the 10
> > > meter log is just not right. And I don't think that much of
software
> > > which can't distinguish a single band log.
> >
> >
> > No - both parties need to lose the QSO.
> >
> > This is not a software issue.  It is a log checking issue.
> >
> > If you get two logs - and the bands do not match up on a QSO
> > how do you tell whom made the error?
> >
> > In Tree's example you could assume that the single band entry
> > is in the right but, how do you know?  You don't.
> >
> > What if they were both multi band logs - who would lose the QSO?
> >
>
>
> Some ops operate single-band - but do a little extracurricular
operating to boost their clubs' scores.  I think CQWW allows that.  So
that questionable 15m QSO could very well have been on 15m and
mislogged by the 10m station (by mistake or, perish the thought, on
purpose).
>
> The software should not be expected to try to tell the difference.
>
> Mike N2MG
>
> ________________________________________________
> PeoplePC:  It's for people. And it's just smart.
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>


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