[CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty

[Tom Haavisto]

Consider this (hypothetical) scenario.  I run like mad, or S&P, making
QSO's "fast and dirty", with no regard to accuracy, and I am happy with a
>50 percent error rate.
Is that the message we want to send to folks when logging QSO's?

The assumption being - make it up on sheer numbers, and let the score fall
where it may?  This way, no worries if a difficult Q is correct or not -
just play the odds, and hope for the best...  *Some* of them will survive
log checking...  Clearly, this is NOT where we want to go.

The assumption being - reward accuracy, and penalize errors.


Tom - VE3CX




On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:

> In a contest you accumulate a score by contacting other stations, correctly
> copy their callsign and generally some other bit(s) of information, and
> accurately transcribe that exchange to your log.
>
> Having correctly copied and logged the required elements, you are credited
> point(s) and perhaps a "mult".
>
> If you incorrectly copy the exchange, or finger-fault the log entry, then
> you are not credited the point(s) or mult.
>
> Without overly belaboring the obvious, your success as a contester is
> directly proportional how fast and accurately you can fill your log with
> "good" exchanges. Lower accuracy = lower score.
>
> So what useful purpose is served by the retribution imposed in the practice
> of reducing the score further with an "additional penalty"?
>
> Do basketball players suffer an additional score reduction if they miss a
> shot? Are points (already scored) deducted from a baseball team if a batter
> fails to get on base? Does a bowler forfeit points earned in the first
> frame if they throw a gutter ball in the eighth frame?
>
> Just wondering.
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>