[CQ-Contest] 3 QSO penalty

[Kenneth E. Harker]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:49:42PM -0400, Guy Olinger, K2AV wrote:
> 
> 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.

Then the SP6 has made a mistake.  If you never gave him reason to believe that
you had copied his information, he should still be there.

> 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?

How can you tell?  Why should you try to differentiate?  If he logs you,
and never got a confirmation from you that you had his information, then
he deserves to lose points.  If he doesn't log you because the QRM made
it impossible to complete the QSO, then he's OK.  It's his behavior that 
determines whether he's punished, not yours.

> 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.

No, you didn't work him.  You don't have his callsign.

> 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.

In other words, a one-way QSO.

> 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

Don't assume that the "little stations" can't follow the rules and
make only real, two-way contacts.

> 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.

He doesn't need a break.  He shouldn't log the QSO unless you gave him
reason to think you had all the information.  If you did that and _then_
fail to log the QSO, that would be unethical on your part.  But in your
above example, that's not what happened.

> 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
> >
> 
> 

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