[CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty

[Tom Rauch]

> I think we're losing sight of what the penalty is for.
> 
> It is to encourage correct copy.
> 
> It has nothing to do with whether or not you:
> guess,
> there's a QRN burst,
> a lid with a broad signal next to you,
> or whatever.
> 
> Sure these things happen, but the best operators know when to ask for a
> repeat when this sort of thing may have occurred.  This is part of having
> good "ears".

The penalty does not punish or discourage the person who has 
removed all suspected mistakes through log checking, it punishes 
the people he worked.

It shifts the penalty to the person with the smaller station, or more 
casual interest, or the fellow without log checking software. 

This cure for guessing must have come from the IRS.
73, Tom W8JI
W8JI at contesting.com 


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


>From Jim Reisert AD1C" <jjreisert at alum.mit.edu  Sun Aug  5 16:14:36 2001
From: Jim Reisert AD1C" <jjreisert at alum.mit.edu (Jim Reisert AD1C)
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 11:14:36 -0400
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contest QSOs: To QSL or not to QSL
In-Reply-To: <LPBBJJHKFOOEGKEBKHOJAEBEDGAA.kg5u at hal-pc.org>
Message-ID: <200108051514.f75FEbc06507 at chmls05.mediaone.net>


On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:53:15 -0500, Dale L Martin wrote:

>That's nice.  But, Rob, why are you sending QSL's without wanting a
>response?  What's the purpose of sending your card to ops you've worked?  Is
>it to give a tangible 'thanks' to them for the Q?  Is it to put your
>call/card in their mind the next time they hear you in a contest so that
>they will be more apt then to try to work you?

KC1XX gets so many bureau cards that he doesn't even bother to open the
packages any more.  Who do you QSL and who do you not QSL if you never
look at the incoming cards?  The way we solved this problem was to QSL
everyone ONCE for each band/mode combination as shown in our logs (up
to 12 QSOs max confirmed per callsign).  We never have to look at the
incoming cards, and we assume that everyone who wants a card gets one
(except for the occational busted callsign).

However, I will take note of "NO RETURN QSL REQUIRED" and add that to
this year's card.  I believe our cards last year said something like,
"Thanks for the QSO and please call us in the next contest."  It did
NOT say "Please QSL".

73 - Jim AD1C

--
Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA +978-251-9933, <jjreisert at alum.mit.edu>, http://www.ad1c.com


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


>From Mike" <W4EF at dellroy.com  Sun Aug  5 18:01:22 2001
From: Mike" <W4EF at dellroy.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:01:22 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty
References: <200108051508.f75F82H21834 at paris.akorn.net>
Message-ID: <00ec01c11dd0$6e311cc0$6401a8c0 at neptune>


If somebody cleans there log by removing "iffy" QSOs, then the little guy on 
the other end will get a NIL and only lose that contact. That is fair since it
was questionable whether or not a valid two-way QSO was completed. A 
"checklog contact" option in the cabrillo format that would allow entrants not to 
claim credit for a particular QSOs, but leave it in the log would solve this problem. 

BTW, the rules posted on the CQ WW site state that the 3 qso penalty applies to 
to broken contacts and duplicate QSOs. I thought dupes weren't penalized. 

Mike, W4EF................
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji at akorn.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>; "Bob Naumann - N5NJ" <n5nj at gte.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty


> 
> > I think we're losing sight of what the penalty is for.
> > 
> > It is to encourage correct copy.
> > 
> > It has nothing to do with whether or not you:
> > guess,
> > there's a QRN burst,
> > a lid with a broad signal next to you,
> > or whatever.
> > 
> > Sure these things happen, but the best operators know when to ask for a
> > repeat when this sort of thing may have occurred.  This is part of having
> > good "ears".
> 
> The penalty does not punish or discourage the person who has 
> removed all suspected mistakes through log checking, it punishes 
> the people he worked.
> 
> It shifts the penalty to the person with the smaller station, or more 
> casual interest, or the fellow without log checking software. 
> 
> This cure for guessing must have come from the IRS.
> 73, Tom W8JI
> W8JI at contesting.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