[CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:31:34AM -0400, Bill Coleman wrote:

> 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.

You assume that the other end KNOWS it was an '"almost" or "one-way" or
"not quite" QSO'.

Such an occurrence is very easy, and very common, especially toward the
end of the contest, and ESPECIALLY since computerized logging programs.
Has to do with clunking the  *logging program* by mistake, you know, the
end-of-contest fuddle finger syndrome? QSY to the contest situation....

I am now at the point of mental fatigue where I can't remember a call
sign for more than a second or two, if that. My memory consists entirely
of the fact that I am copying the call sign into the computer as I go.
I'm in a run situation.

Other end sends SP6KK  I hear SP6KK. I type SP6LL (missed the "K" key)
and hit enter. Just as I hit the enter button, I'm thinking I didn't get
that right, but the program is sending the exchange. I know I don't
remember the call. He comes back, sends his call and exchange. I copy
SP6KC, but I don't think that is right. I try for a correction but
DL99LID starts calling me on top of him and I can't copy what the SP6
sent. I ask for the correction again but when ..LID stops calling the
SP6 is gone.

I guess the SP6 thought he had a QSL. Did he think he did honestly?
Maybe he thinks I'm calling another SP6. Was he a jerk that deserves to
be slammed or an innocent that just didn't copy that I still needed a
correction. Does he deserve a nil and a 3 (+1) QSO penalty?

I KNOW my end is botched. The QSO went in the log when I hit enter
before my brain caught up with my right pinkie. I mark it zonko to clean
up later. I also write SP6KC and the time down on my mangle list. Maybe
I get lucky and run into him on another band before the contest ends. If
so I can get it fixed. If not, it gets deleted. He reads his UBN report
which says I never worked him, which is only half true.

I would LIKE to leave SP6KC in the log, zero points, have it come out
NO-Q in the Cabrillo, not claim any credit for it, and if the SP6 got my
exchange right, let him have it.

Under the current system, I avoid a sure 4 QSO loss by deleting the QSO
altogether, and the resultant 4 QSO penalty to him is just too bad.
According to you tough guys, when DL99LID dropped on frequency, he
should immediately delete the QSO, even though he's SURE he copied my
call and exchange correctly (after all, I was king of the frequency
until DL99LID showed up).

Doesn't anybody else see how predatory this rule makes things? What you
guys got against giving the little stations a break? Based on his signal
strength, he couldn't hold a run frequency if his life depended on it.
He's a 100% S&Per. But the rule has fixed it that I have to falsely
claim a QSO I *KNOW* I didn't complete and take a 3 Q penalty to give
him a break. The log checkers will NOT miss.

We need ZeroQ in Cabrillo, don't care how many people have to change a
program. Programs are made to be changed. (Programs that never change
are programs that never get used... Gripe, Gripe, Grumble, Grumble...)

73,

-----------------

Guy Olinger, K2AV
Apex, NC, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kharker at cs.utexas.edu>
To: "CQ Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty


>
> >
> > >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'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.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Kenneth E. Harker      "Vox Clamantis in Deserto"
kharker at cs.utexas.edu
> University of Texas at Austin                   Amateur Radio
Callsign: WM5R
> Department of the Computer Sciences         President, UT Amateur
Radio Club
> Taylor Hall TAY 2.124                         Maintainer of Linux on
Laptops
> Austin, TX 78712-1188 USA
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>
> --
> 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