[CQ-Contest] Re: Dinged Good QSOs

[Tree N6TR]

SM2EKM asks:

> So how do I defend against this, or improve if you will.
> For example, how do I know that W8JI really logs my call
> correct, if not I´ll lose 4 QSO´s , right? Or is it reverse
> logic, i e W8JI has to improve his act for me to gain.
> Can someone please explain to me how this is a fair deal.
> If I make a misstake and log W8JI incorect I sure can buy
> that I get a penalty but the other way around????
> Is this really the case or do I missunderstand things,
> please explain to me.

Obivously, if you hear someone get your call wrong, you should
do whatever you can to have them correct it.  

When your call is not found in a log, the log checking software 
will try to find a busted callsign.  If W8JI logs you as SM2EKM
or something else that is one character removed from your call,
then it will consider this QSO to be in W8JI's log for the 
purposes of checking your log.

Furthurmore - if the times and other information match up, it 
will be flagged as a bad call - in W8JI's log (with associated
penalty).

If W8JI managles the call to the point that the program can't 
figure out it was really SM2EKM (like if he logged SM1NKM),
the it will count as a NIL for you.  W8JI will end up with a 
unique call.  It will probably not be busted because the program 
never figure out that it was SM2EKM.

Most of the time - there will only be one character in error,
so you won't be penalized.  

It isn't fair - except to realize that W8JI is also going to be
working your competition and if he makes the same kind of the 
mistakes often, they will all have the same penalty applied.

I think if you are looking for a sports analogy - the best one is
the defensive/offensive foul when two players end up on the floor
after a collision.  There is going to be a call - and a foul is 
going to be called on one player or the other.  Sometimes, the
call goes the wrong way.

The penalty discussion discussion is a separate discussion and us
log checkers have enough going on without wading into that mud
puddle.  We just call up the sponsors and ask them what the forumla
is (because it seems to be different for almost every contest).

73 Tree


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


>From Ward Silver <hwardsil at WOLFENET.com>  Fri Aug  3 18:28:03 2001
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil at WOLFENET.com> (Ward Silver)
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty
In-Reply-To: <21990C48AAC20F4686144CC4D026BD71013C5D0A at EMAIL2.bsu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1010803093717.13683G-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>


> From N9RV
>
> The 3-QSO penalty is more deterrent than is needed
> to promote accuracy in contest logs.  Here is why:
> 
> [1] If you guess wrong on a call or exchange, you
>     lose the contact.  That's already incentive to
>     try to get it right.  With zero penalty.

Sure.

> [2] If I guess at calls, and you dig them out, you
>     get more points.

But not as many points as a high-rate sloppy operator just guessing and
going on.  So I am, in effect, penalized for my own rigor.  A latent
penalty to me for good behavior is just as obnoxious as assessing an
explicit penalty for making a mistake.
 
> There is no doubt that adding a 3 QSO penalty
> creates more of an incentive than a zero penalty.
> But this greater incentive comes at the cost of
> greater "side effects" of log checking.

I'm sure the CQ WW committee has considered some of the same effects and
has decided that emphasizing accuracy is better for the long-term health
of the contest.  Not so many years ago, there was a pronounced amount of
unhappiness in the land concerning so-called winners that were not just
sloppy, but actively padding their logs and doing other unsavory things to
inflate their score.  Now we have unhappiness about what the committee
deems to be the necessary response.  Perhaps there is middle ground, but
I'm having a hard time seeing that worrying about whether the penalty is 2
or 3 QSOs is all that much of a difference. 

> These include:
> 
> [1]  Changing contest behavior.  Will ZD8Z call CQ on
>      160 meters anymore?  He might not, because the
>      penalties associated with his more marginal QSOs
>      will detract more from his score than the extra
>      good QSOs add to it.  In general, the current
>      penalty encourages "safe" QSOs at the expense of
>      fringe contacts.
>
>      Those who see contests as "accuracy-fests" will
>      applaud this change.  But those of us who think
>      that contests are occasions to "push the envelope"
>      in terms of what can be worked do not.

But ZD8Z does call CQ on 160 meters - and so do others.  DX contests are
not really for DX-ing, although I certainly take advantage of it to add to
my country or band-mode totals.  This is certainly an attractive feature
for the casual entrant, so I would encourage the serious competitor to put
the call in the log, but flag it not to count for contest credit.

I realize that this is a bit of burden on the serious competitor.  In a
paper log, one might just make a line through the call and go on.  This is
a little more difficult in computer logging.  Perhaps the contest software
vendors can add a "no credit" function that will retain the band/time/call
information, but not the QSO points or multiplier credit. 
 
> [2]  Changing post-contest behavior.  With a loss of 4
>      QSOs staring everyone in the face, the incentive
>      for all sorts of log cleansing activities (which
>      includes the removal of any dubious QSOs -- resulting
>      in the other guy paying the penalty) is much higher.

I would hope that the QSO is not completely removed, but rather, assigned
zero QSO points.  Or else a list of removed calls provided to the log
checkers.  There are a number of ways to protect yourself while not
unfairly penalizing the other guy.

> [3]  Amplifying log checking errors.  We all forgive
>      log checkers for their occasional errors.  But the
>      pain of those errors is much greater with a 300 percent
>      penalty add-on.

>From what I have seen in my own UBN reports, the penalty I receive is
smaller than what I could possibly be assessed based on a stricter set of
requirements for log accuracy.  The checkers are erring on the side of
caution and there are more questionable QSOs retained than those removed,
even with the penalty. 

> [4]  Discouragement of casual and less-than-top-notch
>      contest operations.  It is clear from the accuracy
>      listings that accuracy and contest experience are
>      highly correlated.  A new contester who plunges into
>      the WW for the first time might get handed back a
>      log report that reduces his/her score by 40%!  This
>      is a pretty harsh welcome to the world of contesting.

OK, so if no penalty is assessed as recommended at the top of the message,
then there is NO incentive - and little feedback - that sloppy operating
is a problem.  A newbie is going to be shocked at ANY significant
reduction in score, which is the definition of "penalty". 

> Please note that none of these arguments imply that sloppy
> logs are OK, or that checking logs thoroughly is illegal,
> immoral or fattening.  :-)  Just that a reduction in the
> penalty is in order.
> 
>    - Pat
>      N9RV

First, the WW committee has spent years and years checking logs and
determining what the appropriate level of penalty is.  They have decided
that three QSOs is the smallest penalty that acts as a deterrent to
guessing at calls.  I am in no position to question their analysis and
experience. (The careful reader might also ask why I am in the position
of defending it, then, and my answer is that this is what I understand to
be case - your mileage may vary.)

Second, their goal is to make the competition meaningful at the highest
levels.  This goal is not always compatible with making the competition as
enjoyable as possible at the lower levels.  I guess this is the tradeoff -
rigor is not always fun as my kids will loudly attest.  ("This is a
character building experience, son...")

Third, I think a good deal of unhappiness could be avoided on the part of
the casual and inexperienced operator by better education about log
checking and accuracy.  To be sure, there have been extensive articles
about the UBN determination process, but I don't believe that these are
read by the casual/inexperienced operator. 

Perhaps there needs to be some additional information prepared that
informs the public as to what checking and penalties apply.  I know that
there are clearly written rules, but this is down in the minutia of the
rules and not many of our target audience read to that degree, or
understand the impact. 

Suggestions...

1) Add a clearly labelled sidebar to each year's contest
announcement that very briefly describes the log checking process and
directs the reader to the CQ WW (or whatever contest) web site where more
extensive information is present, including rationale and history of the
log checking procedures.  Include an FAQ with some of the questions that
are raised every year.

2) Have the log acceptance robot include the log-checking URL in its "I
got your log" message.  The same for any UBN report.

I don't think anyone in the casual/inexperienced category will mind if
they know in advance what to expect and why the rules are what they are.
As Pat correctly observes, getting blind-sided (even if it was your fault
for not reading the rules) is unpleasant.

73, Ward N0AX


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