[CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking

Tue Mar 10 18:24:15 PDT 2009

The WPX has a 2 QSO penalty for busted calls.  Missed exchanges or other
errors only lose the the one QSO.

We can make the penalty more if that's what everyone wants.  :)

Randy, K5ZD 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tonno Vahk [mailto:tonno.vahk at mail.ee] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:47 PM
> To: 'Randy Thompson K5ZD'; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking
> 
> Randy! I have to clarify. I absolutely appreciate the efforts 
> of making WPX a better contest and I am not saying there is 
> anything wrong with the log checking.
> 
> I am saying that one can log as much rubbish as he wants 
> without being penalized as the only thing you lose is that 
> particular contact. And that is a bit sad about it. So if you 
> get delusional by the end of the contest and start hearing P5 
> pile up then you can just as well log them without risking
> much:)
> 
> As I remember it has become known that in CQ160 contest DX 
> QSOs have been logged by stations who never actually worked 
> the DX, maybe just hoping that DX does not send log and they 
> get credit (which they have probably got). So I don't like 
> that motivation of logging stuff just in case in any contest.
> 
> So I am afraid K3BU is not entirely with me on that but let's 
> introduce 3 QSO penalty in WPX as well!:)
> 
> 73
> Tonno
> es5tv
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Randy 
> Thompson K5ZD
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:25 PM
> To: 'Tonno Vahk'; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking
> 
> I hope my friend Tonno was just making a joke about logging 
> rubbish in the WPX contest.  It may have been that way in the 
> past, but I can assure you the level of WPX log checking is 
> quite high now.  We cross checked over 95% of every QSO of 
> every log received for both callsigns and exchanges!
> 
> The RDXC does do a great job of log checking.  It was one of 
> the contests that I looked to when considering what to do for 
> WPX log checking. 
> 
> I apologize for making the comment that stations who are not 
> serious should not submit logs.  Every contest sponsor wants 
> to obtain as many logs as possible in order to improve the 
> overall log checking.  It is important for participants to 
> understand that log checking in contests like RDXC and WPX 
> have high standards and depend on everyone playing the game 
> at their best.
> With the computers doing the work, every log is scored and 
> checked exactly the same way, so it is completely fair.  No 
> one likes to lose any QSOs due to mistakes or circumstances, 
> but statistically these are down at the noise level in 
> determining the order of finish.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Randy, K5ZD
> 
> PS - Efforts in both modes of WPX 2008 from Tonno's station 
> had some of the lowest error rates of anyone in the contest!  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tonno Vahk
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:03 PM
> > To: 'Robert L. Shohet'; cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking
> > 
> > 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 all.
> > 
> > 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!:)
> > 
> > 73
> > Tonno
> > ES5TV
> > 
> > -----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'
> > 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
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 