[CQ-Contest] Penalty Blather!

[Tom Baugh AE9B]

I think Tony probably has a point.
Although I would like to think that UBN reflects what errors have occurred
to STATION A, I don't think it necessarily reflects only the errors of the
Operator at "A". If for example one station "B" omits a "Q" from his log
because he would have been in violation of band changes for example. Who
ever's Q that was will be penalized. I'm not condoning this, just suggesting
one way this may occur at the expense of someone other than Operator "A"

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "N2TK" <n2tk at earthlink.net>
To: "'Gene Walsh'" <misterable at hotmail.com>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:12 AM
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Penalty Blather!


>
> Hi Gene. I agree with you that one aspect of the UBN is that it reflects
> your copying errors. What it doesn't reflect is a mistake by the station
you
> just worked. As 8 others were listening (this was near the end of the
> contest and it was a double mult, that is why they were listening) to the
> speaker with my QSO in a contest can attest to, I had a solid confirmation
> for a new mult. But according to my UBNs, I was not in the other stations
> log. Not sure what the other station did, maybe hit the wrong key, but
> whatever. I don't think a general statement should be made that the UBN
> reflects You and Your copying errors. There are other issues here.
>
> Another point, if you are trying to break a record that was made under the
> old rules - paper logs, no UBN checks, etc. are we to assume that there
were
> no errors under the old rules, by your statement below? Or should we be
> trying to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges? Should older
> records made under a different set of rules be so noted? Should the
records
> start over when the rules change? Should there be a set of records for
each
> set of rules?
>
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
> [mailto:owner-cq-contest at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Gene Walsh
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:41 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Penalty Blather!
>
>
>
>
> W3CF sez:
>              > UBN scrutiny that we now suffer under? N3OC figured out we
at
> V26B would > have to average 70 Q's more an hour for 48 hours to approach
> the NA record > in CQ Phone to pass today's average UBN figures. <<
>
> Your UBN stuff reflects YOU and YOUR copying errors.
> The average means nothing.  If everyone were average,
> then one person who pays attention will soar!
>
>
> Get more per hour correct, and the gods will smile.
>
> Or, you could go with those who will not penalize
> carelessness or poor operating.  It's your ticket
> to buy.  The better ride is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> N2AA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
> --
> 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
>


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


>From Timo" <timo.klimoff at kolumbus.fi  Mon May 21 18:01:31 2001
From: Timo" <timo.klimoff at kolumbus.fi (Timo)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:01:31 +0300
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Penalty Blather!
References: <001101c0e200$75a37d60$ed2ffc9e at tony>
Message-ID: <01d001c0e217$b18ff260$97c5f83e at tklimoff>


<Hi Gene. I agree with you that one aspect of the UBN is that it reflects
<your copying errors. What it doesn't reflect is a mistake by the station you
<just worked. As 8 others were listening (this was near the end of the
<contest and it was a double mult, that is why they were listening) to the
<speaker with my QSO in a contest can attest to, I had a solid confirmation
<for a new mult. But according to my UBNs, I was not in the other stations
<log. Not sure what the other station did, maybe hit the wrong key, but
<whatever. I don't think a general statement should be made that the UBN
<reflects You and Your copying errors. There are other issues here.

I agree. After paying attention more to copying the right calls we have noticed a new problem : station worked does not log us! And this is very common despite from your side QSO was 100% and opposite station "acted" like it was 100% in his log.
I wonder if this phenomenon has something to do with real-time computer logging? Maybe some operators are not skillful enough with computers when they are tired? 
When you have recorded your contest it is very interesting to check your UBN list afterwards. From there you can notice how common this phenomenon is.

73, Timo OH1NOA
OH1F contest gang



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