[CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty

[Bill Coleman]

On 8/24/01 10:34 AM, Kenneth E. Harker at kharker at cs.utexas.edu wrote:

>> 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've never understood why "almost" QSOs or "one-way" QSOs or "not quite" 
>QSOs should be logged at all, even at zero points.  If you're not confident 
>that the QSO happened, don't log it.  This doesn't penalize the other 
>station at all unless the other station also decides to log an "almost" 
>or "one-way" or "not quite" QSO.

I can think of a number of scenarios that could leave one operator 
unsure, and the other completely assured of a good QSO.

Let's take the most basic: 

You've been up for 27 hours straight. You're in the middle of a decent 
run. Someone calls in, you QSO, but just as you were going to press 
return, you hit another key and his callsign is whiped out. He's gone, 
and you can't remember the callsign you just heard. You want to log it, 
because it was a good QSO for the other guy, but you can only guess at 
the call.

If you log it, it's most likely to be a Bad QSO, and you may suffer 
additional penalties. If you don't log it, you'll be find, but the OTHER 
GUY will suffer a NIL and penalties.

Life's not fair.



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