[CQ-Contest] Dinged Good QSOs etc

[Keith Kerr]

> Yuri, K3BU wrote......
> 
> 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.
> 
Hi folks,
I rarely venture onto this reflector with any input 
but have been tempted by a number of interesting 
threads, some old, some new!
To Yuri.....'negative' scoring or marking is not all that  
uncommon 'in real life'. In undergraduate and post grad 
examinations throught the UK, where there is potential for 
guess work in answering, for example, multiple choice exam 
questions, there is frequently a 'negative' marking scheme. 
As an example, a correct answer gets you a mark (call it a 
point to aid my simile), no response gets no points but an 
incorrect answer is rewarded by a DEDUCTION of two points. 
The balance between what the correct and incorrect answer 
gets depends on the 'test' stucture. And, yes, this means 
that you can score a negative score in an examination, if 
you attempt all questions and fail to get enough correct 
answers to counterbalance the effect of those you got 
wrong. The point of all this is to disuade folks from 
guessing.....which is part of what we are about here I 
think. If there is no penalty associated with a bad qso, 
perhaps the relative risk of leaving a qso about which you 
are unsure, in your log is low enough to persuade you not 
to bother too much about accuracy?!!

And while I am here, a general point unrelated to Yuri's 
post .....
 I don't pretend to understand the details of log-checking 
but I'm all for the idea, as I am with any attempt, however 
flawed it might be, to detect so-called unassisted 
operations. As someone suggested earlier, there may be some 
mileage in doing a bit of 'compare and contrast' between 
the single band scores of the M/M's and some SBSOU entries, 
and similarily between some M/S scores with SOAB scores. 
There are some very impressive mult scores in the CQWW SSB 
results I read in CQ mag just yesterday. IMHO to match or 
beat the mult score of a M/M station who is passing mults 
between bands and is using spotting networks etc is really 
going some....obviously some secret that all those guys and 
years of M/M experience havent worked out yet?..;(
And finally....signing at the end of QSO's. Please do so. I 
cannot remember who it was who recently offered a bit of 
advice regarding how often to give a call....NW0L maybe 
(sorry if it wasnt). This has been hashed over several 
times but please, please err on the side of giving your 
call, even when your pile-up is heavy. Personally I think 
2 consecutive QSO's not completed/followed by signing your 
call is pushing it and 3 is too many. I am NEVER irritated 
by an operator giving his/her call after EVERY QSO, no 
matter how long I have to wait to get through the heap. This
is simply good operating....end of story.
'Thanks GM4YXI'

OK....back under my stone...... 
Keith GM4YXI (sometimes GM7V/GZ7V)


---------------------


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