[CQ-Contest] serious question clarification

[Mark Beckwith]

George said:

>It will not be the end of the
>world for you or for the person you worked if you or
>he loose points.

I agree.  I think mostly I'm skittish because of my personal situation.  I
was a decent, active operator up until about 1991, prior to the days of UBN
reports (I got a benchmark because my logs were used in the original unique
study done by Tree, Jim and Dick - I was pretty "average").  After a period
of relative inactivity (11 years), I feel like I'm playing catch-up, I feel
like I have something to prove, and I am still not sure of the dynamics of
UBN reports, so I want to play it as safe as possible.

I.e. does an op's basic accuracy nowadays matter more than it used to
because now it can be more accurately measured?  Are UBN reports part of
one's dossier when one is angling for a WRTC chair, or a guest-op chair for
that matter?  These are both things I'm unsure of.

Consequently, I ask about the backspace-over-the-exchange scenario because I
might have reason to get my UBN report as accurate as possible.  This means
I have motivation to shaft the other guy with impunity, which I think is
wrong.

> The NAQP has this rule:
>
> Valid Contact: A valid contact consists of a complete, correctly
> copied and legibly logged two-way exchange between a North American
> station and any other station.

Roger.  The other guy satisfied all requirements of this rule to have a
"valid contact."  The rule does not say "correctly copied by both parties."
I don't believe the intent of this rule is to penalize the compliant station
when a QSO is illegibly logged by the other party.  It is possible (I
believe likely) this rule was written before computer-checking systems were
implemented, and not revisited after the landscape changed.  My guess is
that in the days of paper log checking, at worst this QSO would get taken
out of one log but not the other.

I admit it is possible I am overly concerned about this.

Mark, N5OT