[CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking

Tonno Vahk tonno.vahk at mail.ee
Tue Mar 10 13:02:39 PDT 2009

Hi Bob,

I don't agree that ignoring weak stations and CQing instead is a fruitful
strategy for an ordinary station in any contest. You have the luxury to do
that from DX location with constant pileup maybe but not from US or EU. It's
pretty simple - you either are able to get the call or not and in any
contest you should make sure you get the call right if you want to have
positive Expected Value out of it. Of course you can get away with logging
rubbish in WPX and not being penalized and I don't like that about WPX at

Even if the caller is weak you can almost always take 30 seconds or even a
minute trying to get it right and you can always ask for confirmation to be
sure you have it. If not then not, too bad. If you are even 80% sure in the
call then you can log it as you have positive EV despite 3 possible
penalties. I never ditch any caller in any contest even if he is almost
unreadable. It just does not make sense to waste QSOs in our location. Lazy
ops lose.

I think RDXC has the best log checking and best designed penalty system for
sure. Being strict it does only good to the general quality of contests and
the hobby and by all means, if the QSO is not mutually correct then why
credit it.

As mentioned before, the fact the you can get away (and you have motivation
to do it) in CQWW without correcting your call even when you hear that the
DX got one character wrong is not nice.

I have been heavily penalized in RDXC by having Russian stations copy Victor
as W as it is their nature to do so. Well, I can't complain and have to
figure out how to get my call through to them and it is really my problem as
well not only theirs.

See you in RDXC and please give me a call, even if you are a small pistol!:)


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Shohet
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:52 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking

WM5R said:

On aggregate, you are no more likely to lose points because of other ops' 
errors than your competition is likely to lose point because of those same 
copying errors.  Unless you are somehow more likely to attract the flakes on

the air
than the stations you are competing against, it doesn't put you at a 

Kenneth E. Harker WM5R

Negative!  K7GK makes an excellent point.  In addition, these rules and 
penalties also mean
that those who would otherwise dig deep into the crud and qrn to work the 
weak low power
stations now have a true disincentive for doing so.

If I can work S5 and up stations with 99.9% accuracy, but only maybe 88% 
with S4 and lower stations, I have no reason to even consider working weaker

since the error rate will almost cancel out most of the ones I get right - 
this is especially
true since I am **also** penalized by stations that miscopy my call and 

It is much easier to save the "wear and tear" and to just call cq again and 
hope for
someone louder to call me.  Some Multis already use this "strategy" when 
they are
running EU and an SA station calls them off of the side/back of the antenna.

I have read
several past posts from PY's and LU's on this reflector and 3830 in the past

about this.

So you ARE at a disadvantage if you try to work everyone compared to a lazy 
who doesn't care.  I don't see how this helps anyone.  It means those that 
work harder
at making q's can potentially wind up with a lower score than those who just

weak guys and push "F1".  The weaker stations are the biggest loser of all 
since even
less people will make the effort to work them.  In addition, I also lose if 
I am weak and
try to call a station in RDXC who is more interesting in avoiding penalties 
than gaining
qso points!

Bob KQ2M

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list