[CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty

[Joe Subich, K4IK]

> Bill Fisher W4AN writes in part:
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 3:20 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: re:[CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty
>
>
> At the same time, I have never seen the sense in the 3 QSO penalty rule
> living in to this world of computerized log checking.

I guess (pardon the pun) that nobody involved in this discussion has
ever taken the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or similar examinations.
Each one has penalty for incorrect guesses built in (experienced test
takers will play the odds when they can improve their chances of guessing
correctly).  Those tests are multiple choice exams and can be compared
to "guessing" a single letter of a call.

For the "sloppy" operator ... one who wants to take a chance on a call he
"thinks he got" (or a call he only copied from the packet spot) a three QSO
penalty is appropriate.  I would not, however, levy the three QSO penalty
for uniques that could not be shown as "busted" or where one party logged
incorrectly (wrong time, wrong band, etc.).

Unlike in the past where the three QSO penalty was an attempt to get at
uncaught dupes etc., the real "penalty" should be for the operator who
abuses packet or attempts to gain an advantage by not taking the time to
be certain of the proper call.  This is after all, a communications
activity ... the goal should always be to communicate without ambiguity
or error (anyone care to provide examples showing how the change in a
single character can completely change the meaning of the message?).

73,

   ... Joe, K4IK


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