[CQ-Contest] Unique perspectives

[Jack Brindle]

On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Kenneth E. Harker wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 11:50:01AM -0700, Jack Brindle wrote:
>> But Tree, why is it bad?
>>
>> The QSOs still have to be made. The exchanges have to be sent and
>> received correctly. Just because one's friends get on to give him,
>> but no one else, a QSO, doesn't necessarily make it bad thing. I can
>> see in WRTC where the intent was to keep things very even between the
>> operators. but that is a very specialized contest. In a contest such
>> as Sweepstakes, where getting QSOs from non-participants has long
>> been promoted, it just doesn't make sense to eliminate this activity.
>> By giving the operator a QSO, his friends had to learn what to send
>> and receive for the QSO to be valid. Or he had to take the time, in
>> the contest, to teach them. This is bad?
>
> You seem to be confusing a log checking and scoring process with what
> will actually happen on the air.  Let's say for argument's sake that
> points from unique QSOs were removed from a log's score in the log
> checking process, and all contestants know that this will happen.
> Will this in any way change how they operate?  Will you not log a QSO
> or tell someone to go away?  Since you cannot predict which QSOs
> will or will not be uniques, it would have no effect whatsoever on
> how people operate.  You will still want to work that local guy who
> gets on and makes one QSO with you because you have no idea whether or
> not they will also make other QSOs before the contest is over.

I agree with KD4D on this one. If such a rule were put into place I  
certainly would not go after rag-chewers. It would simply be a waste  
of time and end up hurting my total. It's a shame, too. I've made  
several friends doing this.

> Since removing points earned during QSOs with unique call signs will
> not change the way people operate the contest, but will eliminate some
> of the cheating that we know goes on, I think there's a pretty  
> compelling
> case for change.

Is there really that much cheating? Hams tend to be honest. Perhaps  
it's just a few who cheat. Why penalize every one else? It would be  
preferable to go after those who are cheating.

>> We are supposed to be having fun in contests. There needs to be a
>> place for the super-competitive stations as well as the rest of us
>> who are out to have fun and outdo our previous best. The "uniques"
>> discussion is just one example.
>
> I don't understand why removing the QSO points earned when working
> unique call signs would have a greater impact on a non-"super- 
> competitive"
> station than it would on a "super-competitive" station.  The stations
> that would really benefit from the change would be those that (a)
> don't cheat, and (b) copy call signs really well.  And will stations
> that are not "competitive" even care at all?  Does a station that is
> not "super-competitive" really care if their score is 110,000 points
> instead of 112,000 points?  Or would they care more to know that they
> were in the top half of the logs submitted from their Division, or  
> that
> they beat three out of the four fellow club members they were going up
> against?  I really do not understand how this can be perceived as a
> big gun vs. the rest of us debate.

Well, that's a lot  of the point. I _know_ that my score won't be in  
the top ten. I have no chance of winning my own section, although  
it's a sure bet that I will have the top score on my block since  
there are no other active HF hams. My own competition is against what  
I have done in years past. There are many, many contesters who do the  
same thing. So, does that extra one or two QSO's make a difference?  
Suppose that extra QSO was with a rare station (SC in 2004 SS from  
Northern California, for example). That could cost me a sweep. Is  
that important? Certainly! I bet you would find it important also.

In short, for many, if not the majority, of contesters, it is the  
score that is important, not the final position. That makes _every_  
QSO important. That's why we fight for them.

-Jack Brindle, W6FB
=======================================================================