[CQ-Contest] penalty whiners - step back

[Jim White, K4OJ]

As long as I have the same rules used on my log as N5TJ has used on his I am
happy....he seems to being doing ok.  I also do not seem to remember him
complaining about his score changing too much in his report on his EA8
records - didn't he say he had the second best UBN of the top finishers!

Yup, you can be penalized for things not of your own fault - akin to being
in the wrong place at the wrong time - but as long as the same measuring
device is used to adjudicate all logs all of us are equally susceptible!  If
something about your operating style causes you to have higher UBN rates -
you should fix it!

I think this rush to argue the three Q penalty is too much only serves to
prove that yes, 3 QSO penalties get the attention of the
contenders...conclusion: don't change it - its working!

73,

Jim, K4OJ

...as interviewed on the Hiram Percy Springer Show



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


>From Michael Tope" <W4EF at dellroy.com  Tue May 22 06:58:47 2001
From: Michael Tope" <W4EF at dellroy.com (Michael Tope)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:58:47 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Penalty Blather!
References: <dc.69a6076.283b1f9d at aol.com>
Message-ID: <009b01c0e288$9c457080$6401a8c0 at neptune>


Speaking of UBN reports, are individual UBN reports available for last
years (2000) Sweepstakes CW. We lost some QSOs in our SS CW effort, and I 
am curious to see which QSOs we lost and why.

Thanks,

Mike, W4EF..............

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <K3BU at aol.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Penalty Blather!


> 
> In a message dated 5/21/01 1:36:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> timo.klimoff at kolumbus.fi writes:
> 
>  >
>  >  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
>  >
>  >
> 
> That was whole point of my questioning the 3 QSO penalty. I typically found
> about 30 % of my "errors" not of my doing, but the other station, but I get
> penalized like a criminal for being "sloppy" and I should "learn my lesson"
> and be more accurate. But the UBN "bosses" call the shots, and we can either
> take it, or shove it. Time to do tape recording whole contest and keep the
> evidence?
> You wanna see what the difference between the records for pre-UBN era and now
> is? Check the claimed vs. final scores for those years and you might be
> surprised.
> 
> I vote for just taking the defective QSOs out and I vote for 1 point for
> domestic QSOs in CQ WW.  If we keep repeating and arguing, maybe someone will
> see the light (for betterment of contesting).
> 
> Oh well, good thing its only a hobby (just why do we bother putting up
> antennas and staying up for 48 hours :-)
> 
> 73 Yuri 
> 
> 
> --
> 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