[CQ-Contest] SS CW thoughts

[Leigh S. Jones]

I'm going to have to disagree with Mark here.  Both CT and NA are
notorious for sending the wrong QSO number by 1.  TRLog probably
shares this characteristic.  This is especially true in multi-operator
situations such as my operation at N6VR in last week's SS CW.  But
even when operating as a single operator there are numerous scenarios
where CT and NA will send the wrong QSO number.  Automatically
penalizing either the receiving station or the transmitting station
for this would contribute nothing that advances the purposes that log
checking was intended for... It might, perhaps, automatically penalize
operators that use computers for logging or automatically penalize
multioperator stations.  I really don't believe this would contribute
to the contesting art.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Beckwith" <mark at concertart.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS CW thoughts


> Sorry I'm a few days late on this one.
>
> K2SX wrote:
>
> >I think the checking computer is totally right
> >to allow a QSO number plus or minus one without penality.
>
> I don't agree, especially since many actual copying mistakes have
this exact
> symptom.  I think this should be a wake-up to the transmitting
station to
> pay attention to what his computer is saying about him.
>
> There is at least one program out there which is smart enough to
compensate
> for most situations where some other programs could send the
unintended
> number.  It is user-configurable to send the number of the last QSO
under
> these circumstances.  It works good, but the bottom line is listen
to your
> own code, and don't cause someone else to get dinged becuase of your
own
> errors.
>
> I don't like loosening up the accuracy requirements just to
compensate for
> lazy operating.
>
> Or did I miss something and it has always been this way?
>
> Mark, N5OT
>