[CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 125, Issue 29
Victor M. Walz N2PP
n2pp at frontiernet.net
Fri May 24 13:53:25 EDT 2013
Thanks Ken. I support W9KNI's vendor response in the back of the report.
My 10 meter SWR is low for 600-700 kHz.
I have the 2nd Bencher built and will be putting it up @ 40 feet with a 300
degree sidearm. I will orient it so the lower doesn't turn from 330 to 30
degrees. I will use higher antennas for those paths.
Vic
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
cq-contest-request at contesting.com
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:52 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 125, Issue 29
Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
cq-contest at contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cq-contest-request at contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
cq-contest-owner at contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Country Files Web Site (Jim Reisert AD1C)
2. CQ WW Rules Changes (Bill Tippett)
3. Re: CQ WW Rules Changes (Radio K0HB)
4. Re: CQ WW Rules Changes (Cqtestk4xs at aol.com)
5. Re: CQ WW Rules Changes (Richard F DiDonna NN3W)
6. Errata of CQWW results (Hrvoje Horvat)
7. Re: CQ WW Rules Changes (jimk8mr at aol.com)
8. Fwd: CQ WW Rules Changes (Tom Haavisto)
9. CQ WW DX 2012 - errata (Braco OE1EMS)
10. Re: CQ WW Rules Changes (Barry)
11. Re: CQ WW Rules Changes (Don Field)
12. WPX Penalty (rob)
13. Errors arw [sic] errora [sic] (was Re: CQ WW Rules Changes)
(Art Boyars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:39:30 +0000
From: "Jim Reisert AD1C" <jjreisert at alum.mit.edu>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Country Files Web Site
Message-ID: <53515784l.876118728l21593808l4l at alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hi Folks,
I'm the process of re-designing the country files web site at:
http://www.country-files.com/
I am trying to retain all the original content. However, it may take
a few days before most things have been restored. There are probably
many broken links right now. It will take many days to re-format all
the old release notices, though I plan to do the ones from this year
ASAP.
You can subscribe to the above URL to get an RSS feed of the
postings. Some people may find this convenient.
None of the contest files (downloads) have moved, all can still be
found inside of:
http://www.country-files.com/cty/
Some of the others will have to move, unfortunately. If any of the
non-contest URLS are built into your software, please let me know
ASAP (I've already heard from Scott N3FJP).
73 - Jim AD1C
--
Jim Reisert AD1C, <jjreisert at alum.mit.edu>, http://www.ad1c.us
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:54:07 -0400
From: Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
Message-ID:
<CAOH7AOoxAfhYvM3ccV8tAUfz35zKZJipJSxsS+xd_MKdcV=roQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
(sic...
probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
details are
expected to be announced well before the contests.
I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty change.
Was
this the decision endorsed by the full committee? IMHO this is one of the
unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy. Changing
the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel should
not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals. With the advent of SDR
spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
73, Bill W4ZV
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 00:37:05 +0000
From: Radio K0HB <kzerohb at gmail.com>
To: Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu>
Cc: "cq-contest at contesting.com" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
Message-ID:
<CAMWzEhrDyOXPwdpgzBqQgxM7MRZsssn3Li1rRG_Lw6B_FypKUg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
"Penalties" are for lawbreakers and sinners.
You farkle up a QSO, you don't get credited with the Q. What could be
simpler?
You want a penalty, break the 6th Commandment!
73, Hans, K0HB
On Thursday, May 23, 2013, Bill Tippett wrote:
> I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>
> >During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
> Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
> best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
> changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
> penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
> (sic...
> probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
> on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
> details are
> expected to be announced well before the contests.
>
> I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty change.
> Was
> this the decision endorsed by the full committee? IMHO this is one of the
> unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy. Changing
> the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
> violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel
should
> not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
>
> I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals. With the advent of SDR
> spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:47:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Cqtestk4xs at aol.com
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
Message-ID: <107c95.65e3d39c.3ed012b2 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
This was brought up at the contest forum. It was no surprise when K5ZD
brought up the fact that the top finishing stations had very low NIL while
the ones lower in the rankings had much higher NILs. It was explained,
from
what I gathered, the reduction in penalties would encourage those guys to
participate.
Bill, I am in your camp. 3 points is not that high, especially when the
exchange is as simple as it is. No need to copy the RST, and for 80% of
the
stations the zone pops up for you. All you have to do is copy the call.
Duh! Dumbing down of the contest!
But, it is CQ's contest and they can run it anyway they want.
Bill K4XS
In a message dated 5/24/2013 12:39:39 A.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
btippett at alum.mit.edu writes:
I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
(sic...
probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
details are
expected to be announced well before the contests.
I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty change.
Was
this the decision endorsed by the full committee? IMHO this is one of the
unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy. Changing
the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel should
not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals. With the advent of SDR
spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
73, Bill W4ZV
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:12:40 -0400
From: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w at verizon.net>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
Message-ID: <519EBE88.90100 at verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Bill, I wasn't at Dayton so I didn't get the chance to talk to anyone
about the changes (you often get some pretty good insight after about
10:00 pm on Friday or Saturday night).
While I agree that the leniency on busted calls -might- cause one to
throw a bit more caution to the wind, I don't think there is concern
about integrity of records. The CQWW scoring is an ever-floating system
- owing to the ever changing nature of multiplies. When I first started
contesting in the late 1980s, there were 321 entities on the DXCC list.
There are now 340 - with many of those 19 new entities being ones that
MOST stations can work on at least one band (the PJs, E7, OM, 9A, S5,
and FJ). In the 2011 CQWW SSB test, those entities constituted probably
30 entity mults that would not have been available to me in 1989. That
represents close to half a million points in additional score.
I think the effect of new mults has a more pronounced effect on records
than changing the penalty on busted QSOs - which for a good op is
probably no more than 2% of one's score.
73 Rich NN3W
On 5/23/2013 3:54 PM, Bill Tippett wrote:
> I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>
>> During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
> Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
> best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
> changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
> penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
> (sic...
> probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
> on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
> details are
> expected to be announced well before the contests.
>
> I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty change.
Was
> this the decision endorsed by the full committee? IMHO this is one of the
> unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy. Changing
> the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
> violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel
should
> not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
>
> I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals. With the advent of SDR
> spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:58:27 +0200
From: Hrvoje Horvat <hrle at ipazin.net>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Errata of CQWW results
Message-ID: <519F55E3.3000103 at ipazin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hello contest world,
anybody have an idea for how long the Errata (Corrections to Published
Results) have been standing published on cqww.com site? There is no any
official news or information given out about publishing of these
corrections?!
The corrections themselves did not change the CQWW results, but they
sure effected team selection process of WRTC 2014.
http://www.cqww.com/results_2012cw_errata.htm
http://www.cqww.com/results_2012ssb_errata.htm
I hope that decisions makers are now happy:
in WRTC 2010, 3 potential teams were banned from WRTC with rubber
clocking on their backs
in WRTC 2014, 5 potential teams were awarded with WRTC with rubber
clocking on their backs
Some of us learn twice... for ourselves and for others!
Nevertheless, hear you in CQWPX CW!
73,
Hrle - 9A6XX
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 23:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: jimk8mr at aol.com
To: Cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
Message-ID: <8D02648EDD9B327-4BC-147CF at webmail-m248.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I was not at the contest forum, but several observations:
1.? The issue was addressed in the recent CQWW survey. Might the change
indicate that most people thought a 3 qso penalty was excessive?
2.? For operators of merely human abilities, callsign error rates are a
function of how good you are at watching SuperCheckPartial. Not purely a
matter of how well you copy stuff.
3.? I find that some of my errors are ones where I likely copied the call
OK, but typed badly. (Especially on SSB where the computer does not send out
what you type).
73?? -?? Jim?? K8MR
-----Original Message-----
From: Cqtestk4xs <Cqtestk4xs at aol.com>
To: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 9:46 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
This was brought up at the contest forum. It was no surprise when K5ZD
brought up the fact that the top finishing stations had very low NIL while
the ones lower in the rankings had much higher NILs. It was explained,
from
what I gathered, the reduction in penalties would encourage those guys to
participate.
Bill, I am in your camp. 3 points is not that high, especially when the
exchange is as simple as it is. No need to copy the RST, and for 80% of
the
stations the zone pops up for you. All you have to do is copy the call.
Duh! Dumbing down of the contest!
But, it is CQ's contest and they can run it anyway they want.
Bill K4XS
In a message dated 5/24/2013 12:39:39 A.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
btippett at alum.mit.edu writes:
I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
(sic...
probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
details are
expected to be announced well before the contests.
I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty change.
Was
this the decision endorsed by the full committee? IMHO this is one of the
unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy. Changing
the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel should
not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals. With the advent of SDR
spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
73, Bill W4ZV
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:42:05 -0400
From: Tom Haavisto <kamham69 at gmail.com>
To: CQ Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: CQ WW Rules Changes
Message-ID:
<CAKNnRU4zmr+vnVZnbsVnqjL-B8LQGR+FzUGMGJ2vJLrFmtzjHA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Haavisto <kamham69 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
To: Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu>
I was at the presentation, and the thinking was that the top operators
try very hard to get everything right. One busted QSO can (and has)
made the difference between first/second place, so accuracy counts.
To a large extent, folks at this level will be unaffected by reducing
the penalty from 3 to 2. However, folks "in the middle and lower"
tend to be less careful, and they get whacked pretty hard. Randy made
an example of one person making 30 QSOs, messing up a dozen and ending
up with a negative score. Clearly, this was not a serious entry, but
I am sure they were shocked to end up with a negative score! Randy
did some checking, and the change will not make a big change to the
top scores, so it seemed like a reasonable change.
As for the dirty signals, this rated pretty high in the survey
results. The thinking is - the person with the dirty signal is
actually better off, as folks will tend to move a bit further away in
order to escape the dirty signal, leaving him with less QRM/better
off. The open question being - how is this going to be determined?
They have SDR recordings for the entire contest, so "after the fact"
analysis is certainly possible. For now, good idea, have data - just
need a way to figure out who the offenders are. If anyone has a way
to objectively determine a good/bad signal, please let Randy know.
Tom - VE3CX
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>
>>During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
> Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
> best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
> changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
> penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
> (sic...
> probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
> on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
> details are
> expected to be announced well before the contests.
>
> I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty change.
Was
> this the decision endorsed by the full committee? IMHO this is one of the
> unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy. Changing
> the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
> violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel
should
> not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
>
> I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals. With the advent of SDR
> spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:47:15 +0200
From: "Braco OE1EMS" <oe1ems at emssolutions.at>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW DX 2012 - errata
Message-ID: <012101ce5852$e8f3afd0$badb0f70$@emssolutions.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
http://www.cqww.com/results_2012ssb_errata.htm
http://www.cqww.com/results_2012cw_errata.htm
Red cards changed into yellow cards?!
Very interesting to see there is again pre WRTC competitors tuning on the
work!
My congratulations to Fabio IT9GSF and Sandy DL1QQ they after Dayton
conversation
with K5ZD made it to avoid RC and now can be part of the WRTC game!
Nothing against you girls and boys (GSF and QQ) but what is it all about?
Do you think you feel better as others who didn't had possibility to avoid
RC on that way? Or you are just better because you can go WRTC now ..
In past years I saw many manipulations but this going too far me.
Every time I lsn to those webinars hearing how CC want to made
Contesting more fair etc and then CC doing such things? Is this fair play
for everyone?
Sorry to say this but more and more I would like to have alternative and to
send my log who knows how to judge and where we have same criteria
for everyone and they don't change their decisions every few moths!
Big unlike for CC and K5ZD!
73s
Braco E77DX
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:15:06 -0600
From: Barry <w2up at comcast.net>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
Message-ID: <519EDB3A.3060901 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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
On 5/23/2013 19:12, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> Bill, I wasn't at Dayton so I didn't get the chance to talk to anyone
> about the changes (you often get some pretty good insight after about
> 10:00 pm on Friday or Saturday night).
>
> While I agree that the leniency on busted calls -might- cause one to
> throw a bit more caution to the wind, I don't think there is concern
> about integrity of records. The CQWW scoring is an ever-floating
> system - owing to the ever changing nature of multiplies. When I
> first started contesting in the late 1980s, there were 321 entities on
> the DXCC list. There are now 340 - with many of those 19 new entities
> being ones that MOST stations can work on at least one band (the PJs,
> E7, OM, 9A, S5, and FJ). In the 2011 CQWW SSB test, those entities
> constituted probably 30 entity mults that would not have been
> available to me in 1989. That represents close to half a million
> points in additional score.
>
> I think the effect of new mults has a more pronounced effect on
> records than changing the penalty on busted QSOs - which for a good op
> is probably no more than 2% of one's score.
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
> On 5/23/2013 3:54 PM, Bill Tippett wrote:
>> I noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:
>>
>>> During the Contest forum at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
>> Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did an interesting presentation on the
>> best contest in the world, the CQ World Wide. He mentioned several
>> changes that will take place starting this year. The busted QSO
>> penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the removal one
>> (sic...
>> probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ WW Contest is working
>> on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide signals, etc.). Full
>> details are
>> expected to be announced well before the contests.
>>
>> I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted QSO penalty
>> change. Was
>> this the decision endorsed by the full committee? IMHO this is one
>> of the
>> unique features of the CQ WW that encourages logging accuracy. Changing
>> the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2 may seem insignificant but it potentially
>> violates the integrity and consistency of past records, which I feel
>> should
>> not be done without careful consideration and discussion.
>>
>> I applaud the move to DQ based on dirty signals. With the advent of SDR
>> spectrum recordings, I hope this can be enforced.
>>
>> 73, Bill W4ZV
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:00:22 +0100
From: Don Field <don.field at gmail.com>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
Message-ID:
<CA+UP7LB4Hc8fhY2=xEdhB6xvt2e5ad2regP3jKc7Zp1fUGjiZA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:02:01 -0500
From: "rob" <wa1fcn at charter.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WPX Penalty
Message-ID: <CAF0092A84A04D2AA80E827426A10BE4 at bdx5jc1e1f8e68>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
With all the recent talk of CQ WW penalty change I
was wondering about WPX. Maybe I missed it but in
reading the rules I do not see it.
What is the penalty for wrong serial number or NIL or
busted call ?
BoB WA1FCN
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:37:07 -0400
From: Art Boyars <artboyars at gmail.com>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Errors arw [sic] errora [sic] (was Re: CQ WW
Rules Changes)
Message-ID:
<CAJFNq0EsBXGCzyBY+Rm4=aVFi5JtN8iZEMW24593ZiDuwKr1dw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I find myself disagreeing with K8MR. What am I doing wrong?
"2.? For operators of merely human abilities, callsign error rates are a
function of how good you are at watching SuperCheckPartial. Not purely a
matter of how well you copy stuff."
I guess that's right. And I guess that I am making it harder for myself by
NOT using the technology of SCP at home. ("Tune for maximum fun", for me,
does not include SCP. But "de gustibus non disputandum est," and maybe
I'll change my mind when I can no longer remember call signs from previous
SS.)
"3.? I find that some of my errors are ones where I likely copied the call
OK, but typed badly. (Especially on SSB where the computer does not send
out what you type)."
Well !! I have opined previously that typing errors (even so-called
"obvious typo's") are, in fact, errors. If you did not get the info into
your log correctly - DURING THE 'TEST -- you have busted that part of the
QSO. (See my "Busted" thread, on losing the SSCW Sweep for mis-typing a
call.) For myself, I'm still learning how to copy 'phone to the keyboard.
Lot's of typing errors, but they are errors. (See my "Busted again" thread
on losing the SS Phone Sweep for busting a Check.)
73, Art K3KU
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 125, Issue 29
*******************************************
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list