[CQ-Contest] Proposed rule changes

[Larry]

I have had a lot of excellent secretaries over the years that could type 
blazingly fast but every one of them made mistakes from time to time (a lot 
less than I do!).  But if I take your meaning we need to do away with things 
like the N1MM WIPE command. A bit absurd of course but it is a form of 
correction.

Dupes are not always a correction. Some people just miss the dupe indicator 
(if present) on their logging program (or however they keep track of who's 
been worked already).

73, Larry  W6NWS

-----Original Message----- 
From: XV4Y (Yan)
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 7:15 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed rule changes

Hi Kelly,

I think your example (while being picturesque) is wrong.
What the rule want is you to log what has been exchanged.
In that case you corrected the informations through a radio contact and you 
did it during the contest time frame.
The same goes for "Dupes" which are not penalized because they are a 
correction of a previous QSO. The penalty in a case of a dupe is that you 
both lose time.

Remember we're trying to tell which operator is the most skilled operator 
among the contesters.
Who is the best operator ?
- The one who get the callsign and exchange right from the beginning and 
typed it down correctly ?
- The one who get it almost right but needed time to think about it twice 
and correct it in his log ?
I don't see why the second type of operator should be allowed to have 
additional time after the contest.

You can argue that we're now putting "computer typist" in the required 
skills to be a good operator.
Yes, that's right. We're in 2015, and a computer is required thing to be a 
competitive operator :just like a paddle and keyer set.
If you want to have fun with a straight key and without computer : you can 
enter the "classic operator" category.

73,
Yan.
---
Yannick DEVOS - XV4Y
http://xv4y.radioclub.asia/
http://varc.radioclub.asia/

> Le 24 mai 2015 à 23:00, cq-contest-request at contesting.com a écrit :
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 08:13:18 -0500
> From: <ve4xt at mymts.net>
> To: "wc1m73 at gmail.com" <wc1m73 at gmail.com>
> Cc: Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine at earthlink.net>, Jeff Stai
> <wk6i.jeff at gmail.com>, "cq-contest at contesting.com"
> <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed rule changes
> Message-ID: <SNT406-EAS213D58C0ED66760FA3D16E1FECE0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> If what Dick suggests is true, that WW has become a typing contest, and it 
> really is the intent to prevent the correction of honest fat-finger flubs, 
> then that is the height of silliness?
>
> The CQ rules are silent on what constitutes a complete QSO, as well. 
> Unlike ARRL, which states a complete QSO is when the calls and exchanges 
> have been sent, received, ack'd and logged correctly.
>
> If we accept that definition, and in the absence of a definition by CQ, 
> then if you correct an honest typo, you are not correcting the log after 
> the QSO: your correction marks the completion of it.
>
> Because what Dick is suggesting would make this illegal: you're running 
> and respond to a caller but get a letter off. He corrects but due to QSB 
> or QRM, you don't hear his correction until after you've hit enter and he 
> slips in his correct call before the next caller. But you've logged it 
> wrongly, so you can't go back and fix?
>
> Really?
>
> Ambulance dispatcher: unit 7, suspected cardiac arrest, 738 Mrs. Robinson 
> Way.
>
> Ambulance: 738 Mrs. Robertson way, ack.
>
> A minute later: was that Mrs. Robertson Way or Mrs. Robinson Way?
>
> Ambulance dispatcher: sorry, no post QSO corrections allowed. You must 
> proceed to the address you wrote down.
>
> 73, Kelly
> ve4xt

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest