[CQ-Contest] Penalties

[Donald L Kerouac]

The subject of penalties has stirred a lot of dis-content.

I feel that a three to four Q reduction for an error, that may or may not
be your fault, is unreasonably harsh.

Certainly, bad Q's (for whatever reason) must be disallowed.  I know some
ops think that that sould be enough  and removing one more good Q for
"incentive" is wrong.

In the 2001 CQWW 160 SSB Contest, I had a computer crash and lost my
first 44 contacts.  That means 44 other contesters will get NIL's and
lose 4 Q's each because of my glitch.  These were all solid, valid
contacts.  Perhaps, instead, I should be penalized 176 Q's for this
bungle!?  I sure don't want that!  Most of us have lost valid contacts
because of equipment problems or mistakes.  It's frustrating, but part of
the game.  Equipment failures are, at least, natural and you come away
feeling you have some control over the matter and that you'll "get 'em
next time!"  

Those who favor the stiff penalties say that it discourages cheating and
encourages better operating practices amoung the great mojority of
contesters who do not cheat.  I admit that is a hard point to argue. 
Still, I don't believe cheating is that big a problem.  Out of the
thousands of contesters, only a relative few will win any fame,
notoriety, plaques, certificates, etc.  Clearly then, the great majority
of contesters are in it for the fun of it and for personal satisfaction. 
They have little incentive to cheat as cheating, in and of itself, offers
little personal satisfaction.
Obviously, the greatest temptation to cheat would be for someone near the
top whose goal is an award.  Still, these operators represent the best of
the best and often have a substantial investment in time and money in
their stations.  The majority of these people have maybe an even greater
incentive to keep things honest and to preserve their favorite part of
the hobby. 
Now I an not naive enough to believe that all is well in Wonderland. 
There will always be a few classless lids who will try to win the easy
way.  No matter how much we accelerate the log-checking arms race, those
who choose to cheat will continue to find ways to do it.  

As for encouraging better operating practices.  I think it does, but at
what price?  I feel there is a danger of driving out new contesters
before they have a chance to really enjoy the sport.  After all, when you
are new and still developing your skills, it is natural to make mistakes.
 Usually without even realizing it!  
If you think this is not a problem, take a good hard look at the people
in the contest suites at Dayton next year!  See lots of young, fresh
faces?  Or does it look like an AARP convention?  Contesting won't be the
same with only 28 submitted logs from 28 different nursing homes!

Blamimg the software vendors is like shooting the messenger.  The writers
of log-checking software have been open about the strengths and
weakness's of their product.  The programs can check for NIL, Broken
Calls , etc.  However, they cannot determine which station made the
mistake.  The powers that be can make some reasonable assumptions but
when (not "if") they are wrong, nice poeple take a hit.

I don't pretent to have an answer to all this.  We all operate under the
same rules, so in a sense there is a "fairness" to it all.  I believe the
contest sponsors and the software writers do a fine (often thankless)
job.  We are probably on the right track.  Perhaps a penality of one good
for one bad would offer a greater sense of fairness.  At least you
would'nt feel like you were dealing with the IRS! 

Maybe a survey, similiar to the CQ contester survey, should be taken to
see how the majority feel.

Contesting will grow...if it is fun.  In our haste to make every log
perfect, let's not take the fun out of it!  

Don, K9NR


________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.


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


>From K0HB at qwest.net" <K0HB at qwest.net  Mon Aug  6 22:24:20 2001
From: K0HB at qwest.net" <K0HB at qwest.net (Hans K0HB)
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:24:20 +0100
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Penalties
Message-ID: <01C11EC6.B519A840.K0HB at qwest.net>


On Monday, August 06, 2001 8:38 PM, Donald L Kerouac [SMTP:k9nr at juno.com] 
wrote:
>
> The subject of penalties has stirred a lot of dis-content.
>
> I feel that a three to four Q reduction for an error, that may
> or may not be your fault, is unreasonably harsh.
>
> Certainly, bad Q's (for whatever reason) must be disallowed.
> I know some ops think that that sould be enough and removing
> one more good Q for "incentive" is wrong.

I'd tend to agree that 3 Q's may be overly harsh, but I feel
that some penalty (beyond just deleting the 'bad' entry) is
beneficial in that it encourages accuracy.  If an operator
can just 'blow past' a questionable contact without consequence,
then we are simply rewarding sloppy operating.

By the way, I don't think even a 10 Q penalty would deter
the few (if any) cheaters who are out there.  Someone got
in my case here about the importance of log checkers to
catch cheaters.  Personally, I always thought log checkers
were around, not around to catch dishonesty, but to check
accuracy.  Silly me!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB


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