[CQ-Contest] SS CW thoughts

[Paul D. Schrader]

I disagree.  If you have contest programs that do not perform properly
either because of them, or poor operator use, your contact should not count
(for receive or transmit).

It is the responsibility of ALL to get it all right (including the
checkers).  Sloppy stuff and operation should not be accepted.  I have seen
a lot of ops just keep going even when they know contact info is wrong.
This should not be accepted when detected.

It takes time and effort to get proper contacts.  Those who take that time
and effort to get it right should not be allowed to be beaten by those that
don't. 

I agree with Mark, N5OT.

73

Paul  N4XM

At 06:16 PM 11/13/02 -0800, you wrote:
>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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>