[CQ-Contest] Fw: Just when you think
ua9cdc at r66.ru
Tue Jan 18 09:50:24 EST 2005
Thanks for real life story to support ".. penalize both sides of the
Although I agree, there is incentive for deliberate distortion of
one's call sign when working competitor I do not believe somebody
dare to use such a dirty trick in practice. It will become pretty
obvious after several contests or even after just one contest. Every
serious competitor nowadays got used to analyzing UBN after the
73, Igor UA9CDC
> I guess one event probably influenced me most in my thinking about
> for badly copied calls. I won't name the individual concerned as
> thoughts relate more to principle than personality but:
> While S&P in a recent major event, I called a very well known
> station. Although he was very strong with me and I suspect I was
> it took three calls, in between which he called CQ, before I got a
> 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
> knew which contact he was referring to, as I had only logged one
> contact with his entity on that band. So I said, "You didnt
> call". He replied, "No, I get multiplier, you get penalty....Hi!".
> This incident really showed up a weakness of a scheme which only
> the operator who incorrectly logs the call (or logs an incorrect
> could be argued that such a scheme might provide incentive for the
> unscrupulous to fudge their own call when making exchanges with
> 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
> > the receiver for a badly copied call and not the sender. It
> > >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
> > log calls and other exchange requirements for either to be
> > points >the emphasis on ID might be improved. (at least in
> > >Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
> > _______________________________________________
> > This is an interesting subject. What Bob said about penalizing
> > sides of QSO does make sense. There are two schools of thoughts.
> > is the CQWW and WPX where receiving side takes all the penalties.
> > was supporting this approach assuming that nowadays senders
> > most of them) use computers for perfect sending and therefore all
> > mistakes are on the receiving side.
> > Another school of thought is widely used here in Russia for most
> > the contests (Russian DX contest excluded). It states that QSO is
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > using sophisticated algorithm.
> > Anyway in the light of what Bob said, may be the more strict
> > when both stations are responsible for correct exchange in both
> > does make sense.
> > 73, Igor UA9CDC
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest