[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes

[Yuri Blanarovich]

Glad to see incremental improvement in contest rules, thanks Randy!

Just strikes me, ham radio "logic" vs. rest of the life logic.
Where in life do we have 3 times "penalty" for mistake, error, 
innacuracy?
You answer question on test wrong, do you get "penalized" by taking 3 
more
questions out (into negative score) to "teach" you?
You get speeding ticket, police gives you 3 times miles over the limit 
to "teach" you?  Etc.

As Don writes, it is the relic from paper log days, that some "ham 
lawyer" figured
would be good thing to teach those slopy, cheating hams lesson.
Records, actually there are some old records that are inflated due to 
old (non)checking
and are hard to beat with "penalizing" system of new checking.
Had that happen to me.
Problem with QSO with error? Just don't count it. Simple, logical, 
normal!

Thanks for the small step for the hamkind!

Now, why do we still penalize large radio countries with ZERO points per 
QSO?
Another relic from the distant past. With today's technology, SDRs, no 
need for that,
make it more fair and give everybody 2 or 3 points per QSO.

As another example of ham radio "logic", back to MY skimmer (gadget) 
being
classified as SOMEONE else (person) and treated as ASSISTANT.
Time to treat things as they are, not what they pretend to do. Where is 
the borderline?

I am not getting into "extending mike and headphones" with remotering
and making business out of it and QST/ARRL promoting it.

Good luck in WPX!

73  Yuri, K3BU.us
www.MVmanor.com



On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:00 AM, 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> 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
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest