[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes

[Radio K0HB]

Why is ANY penalty appropriate?  Seriously.  You screw up the Q - you get
no credit. Simple!

Penalties are punishment for violations.  Is lack of skill in copying a
call a violation?

Seriously?



On Friday, May 24, 2013, Don Field wrote:

> I suspect the answer is actually quite mundane. When the 3:1 penalty was
> first introduced, log checking was still on paper and only a small
> proportion of errors were actually detected (in any case, with paper logs,
> many participants didn't even send in logs as it was such a chore, so those
> QSOs couldn't be checked). So 3:1 was a way of making up for the limited
> checking that could be done.
>
> Nowadays, with computer log checking, typically 70% or more of QSOs get
> checked, so fewer than half of any errors go undetected. On that basis a
> 2:1 penalty seems entirely appropriate?
>
> Don G3XTT
>
> On 24 May 2013 04:15, Barry <w2up at comcast.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > I was there.  Randy said a number of guys were winding up with negative
> > scores.  That certainly doesn't encourage long term participation by
> > newbies.
> >
> > Barry W2UP
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <javascript:;>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>


-- 
73, de Hans, K0HB
"Just a boy and his radio"
--
Sea stories at --------> http://K0HB.wordpress.com
Superstition trails ---> http://OldSlowHans.com