[CQ-Contest] Fw: Just when you think

[Alan Zack]

I got pinged once for a busted call when I worked a friend during a 
contest who was not in the contest.  He heard me in the contest, 
answered my CQ, we chatted for a moment, I logged him and he gave me a 
contact S/N 001.  I was his only contest contact.  I considered him a 
unique call contact for me, the contest people said he was a busted 
call.  They did not indicate what they believed the call should have been.
It wasn't a big deal, just one QSO, but makes me wonder........
73

Bob Henderson wrote:

> Igor
> 
> I guess one event probably influenced me most in my thinking about penalties
> for badly copied calls.  I won't name the individual concerned as my
> thoughts relate more to principle than personality but:
> 
> While S&P in a recent major event, I called a very well known contest
> station.  Although he was very strong with me and I suspect I was with him,
> it took three calls, in between which he called CQ, before I got a response.
> When it came, the response was "Worked before".  I replied with "Not in log"
> and the station responded with  "You copied my call wrong".  I imediately
> knew which contact he was referring to, as I had only logged one other
> contact with his entity on that band.  So I said, "You didnt correct your
> call".  He replied, "No, I get multiplier, you get penalty....Hi!".
> 
> This incident really showed up a weakness of a scheme which only penalises
> the operator who incorrectly logs the call (or logs an incorrect call).  It
> could be argued that such a scheme might provide incentive for the
> unscrupulous to fudge their own call when making exchanges with those who
> might constiute serious competition.
> 
> Perish the thought, someone would actually do such a thing!
> 
> Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at r66.ru>
> To: "Bob Henderson" <bob at cytanet.com.cy>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 6:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fw: Just when you think
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>>What I can't understand is why rules in some contests only penalise
>>
>>the receiver for a badly copied call and not the sender.  It seems
>>
>>>to me that if an appropriate exchange doesn't take place then
>>
>>neither should there be a valid qso for either party.  If all
>>contests >supported a scheme in which both stations had to correctly
>>log calls and other exchange requirements for either to be awarded
>>points >the emphasis on ID might be improved. (at least in contests)
>>
>>
>>>Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>This is an interesting subject. What Bob said about penalizing both
>>sides of QSO does make sense. There are two schools of thoughts. One
>>is the CQWW and WPX where receiving side takes all the penalties. I
>>was supporting this approach assuming that nowadays senders (well,
>>most of them) use computers for perfect sending and therefore all the
>>mistakes are on the receiving side.
>>Another school of thought is widely used here in Russia for most of
>>the contests (Russian DX contest excluded). It states that QSO is a
>>two way road and if something is wrong in one of the logs, then
>>correct exchange did not take place and both parties should be
>>penalized. The latter approach, although it sounds true, does not
>>take into account the fact that the motivation to be awarded points
>>for QSO could be different with different parties. If I am just
>>casual participant I do not care much about points an penalties.
>>Sometimes these participants do not send in log at all and therefore
>>all contacts with them should not be counted. Russian DX contest
>>sponsors tried to partly compensate for that by creating "virtual
>>logs" for such a participants and analyzing the probability of QSO
>>using sophisticated algorithm.
>>Anyway in the light of what Bob said, may be the more strict approach
>>when both stations are responsible for correct exchange in both logs
>>does make sense.
>>
>>73, Igor UA9CDC
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
> 

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________ 

Alan Zack
Amateur Radio Station K7ACZ
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
Aviation Chief Warrant Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
U.S. Coast Guard, Always Ready, Always There
Every hour, Every day, Around the Clock and Around the World
SEMPER PARATUS
http://www.gocoastguard.com
http://www.uscg.mil/d14/units/asbp/uscgasbp/
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY