[CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking

[Kenneth E. Harker]

     I have no doubt that the RDXC log checking policies might make 
you more aware of the need to be accurate, and might as a result change 
tactical choices one makes in the contest.  And I don't know if it's a 
good idea or not.  But how would casual/non-competitive operators 
witholding log submissions change the competitive landscape of the event
for the competitive/serious operator?  Everyone's absolute score might
be a little bit higher, but how would it impact the final results?

    Consider this scenario - you call a station and she comes back with a 
busted call that's one character off.  In the ARRL DX contest, you have no
particular scoring incentive to correct the CQing station - you can give 
your exchange and be on your way.  You'll get full credit and she'll get a 
busted call sign in her UBN report and suffer the penalty.  In the RDXC, I 
guess you have a strong incentive to correct the CQing station before you 
complete the QSO.  But, so does your competition every time they find 
themselves in the same situation.  Your operating tactics may have changed, 
and maybe that means your rate is slightly lower or something.  I fail to 
see how it alters the playing field, though, because everyone is going to
figure out the same changes to make, be they correcting other stations errors
or not going after "marginal" QSOs that in other events are acceptable 
risks or whatever.  Asking stations not to submit logs wouldn't alter the 
playing field, either, unless the witheld logs were more likely to have 
errors working one station than another.



On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 02:52:04PM -0400, Robert L. Shohet wrote:
> WM5R said:
> 
> On aggregate, you are no more likely to lose points because of other ops' 
> copying
> errors than your competition is likely to lose point because of those same 
> ops'
> 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 
> disadvantage.
> 
> 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% 
> accuracy
> with S4 and lower stations, I have no reason to even consider working weaker 
> guys
> 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 
> exchange!
> 
> 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 
> complaining
> about this.
> 
> So you ARE at a disadvantage if you try to work everyone compared to a lazy 
> op
> 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 
> ignore
> 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
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

-- 
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker at kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/