[CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty

[Bill Coleman]

On 8/3/01 1:28 PM, Ward Silver at hwardsil at WOLFENET.com wrote:

>> [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.

Excellent point.

>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. 

I think it is worthy of consideration. The 3 QSO penalty was there both 
to encourage "correct" behavior, as well as act as to assess the busted 
QSOs that log checking missed. Today, with computerized log checking, 
very little is missed. Indeed, the net is much finer, so perhaps the 
penalty might be reduced. A 1 or 2 additional QSO penalty could make a 
big difference in a log where someone has made a couple of honest 
mistakes.

>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. 

Part of the problem isn't the software -- but with the reporting format. 
Cabrillo, despite it's other fine qualities, has no way to report "no 
credit" QSOs. The alternative is to report them, and suffer the 
consequences of possible penalties, or to delete them, which is unfair to 
the other party who acted in good faith.

>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.

Cabrillo has no way to assign zero points to a QSO. You can put a note to 
the log checks in the comment area, but this does not guarantee they will 
see it. (Although it is likely -- these guys are pretty sharp)

>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. 

Agreed -- but is 3 QSOs the right penalty with the modern checking that 
is done?

>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. 

This penalty was determined before computerised log checking was in 
place. Perhaps, due to the improved nature of the checking, the magnitude 
of the penalty should be re-evaluated.

>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. 

I think you've mis-stated their goals. I believe that the contest 
sponsors want a contest with high participation as the main goal, and 
contest excellence as a second goal. 

If the the participation in CQWW were shrinking, you'd see them make 
moves, such as the ARRL PINS program for Sweepstakes.


Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901


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