[CQ-Contest] Dinged Good QSOs

[K3BU at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/1/01 9:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kr6x at kr6x.com 
writes:

> 
>  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.
>  

The problems with picking good QSOs as bad is aggravated by the 3 QSO 
penalty. I could swallow the occasional bad judgment if only bad QSOs were 
removed and no penalties.
This 3 QSO penalty is the most illogical "punishment" known to mankind. Try 
to apply the same philosophy in real life to other tests or scoring systems: 
Like if you answered 5 questions on a written test wrong, and we will take 
another 15 out "just to  punish you" or to "teach you" to answer wrong. 
But the "bosses" decided we need punishment, so here we go. Just look at 
giant step in score reductions (and records affected) since the "penalty" has 
been used with computerized log checking.

And why do we still have 0 points for own country QSOs in CQ WW? What does 
that achieve besides badly skewing results and punishing countries with large 
ham population?
Just trying to be sane and get some sense into our beloved contesting.
There is always Tesla Cup Contest introducing fresh 21st Century rules in <A 
HREF="http://members.aol.com/k3bu/TeslaCup.htm">Tesla Cup Rules</A>

Yuri, K3BU 


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