[CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty

[Ken K6MR]

That was my point. It is silly to talk about log accuracy when we know that the results don’t necessarily reflect what actually occurred. Certainly things are much better than they were in the old days. But mistakes are going to be made.

Production of the contest results are really no different from the production of anything: “Quality, Speed, Cost: pick two”.

Ken K6MR

From: Helmut Mueller<mailto:helmut at photo42.de>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 05:16
To: 'Ken K6MR'<mailto:k6mr at outlook.com>; ac0w at charter.net<mailto:ac0w at charter.net>; cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty

Hi Ken.

Quote: "Lots more work for the sponsor. But if everyone is serious about accuracy it will need to be done."

This is a great demand, but who is going to do it? You want to ask "somone" who spends 200+ hours on logchecking to simply double his private spare time to 400+ hours just to prove what? You have 5 less qsos being deducted? Have you ever tried to find volunteers spending hundreds of hours on something painful like this? Getting the blame at the end because they deducted to much QSOs?

I remember a quote (was it Randy?): "We are here to find the correct order of participants, not the correct numbers". (something close to this)

CQWW SSB has 8200+ Logs. Let every participant pay 25$ to send his log, than we have the time and money to spend for more accuracy.

73

Helmut

df7zs.de




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] Im Auftrag von Ken K6MR
Gesendet: Friday, 15 April, 2016 6:05 AM
An: ac0w at charter.net; 'cq-contest at contesting.com' <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty

They have already moved to confirming both sides: recordings. Now that recordings are mandatory for the big guns, if you are serious about your score you don’t have any choice but to record.

What needs to happen (if the contest sponsors are serious about accuracy) is to send LCRs prior to the results being posted and allow stations to cross check the LCR with the recordings. If the receiving station can prove that the data copied was indeed what was sent then no penalty to the receiver.  Then the penalty can be assessed against the sender.

Lots more work for the sponsor. But if everyone is serious about accuracy it will need to be done.

Ken K6MR

From: ac0w at charter.net<mailto:ac0w at charter.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 19:15
To: 'cq-contest at contesting.com'<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty

Ed,
Your very last line points to a key critical element "a successful two way QSO". A successful two way QSO requires both a sending station to accurately send and record that information along with a receiving station to accurately receive and record that information. There are plenty of times when then sending station either inaccurately sends information or inaccurately records the information sent while the receiving station accurately records that information. Because the information in the two logs do not match and the receiving station is assumed guilty and penalized despite the sending station being the guilty party.
To make matters worse for the innocent receiving station that is penalized, the guilty sending station gets to receive credit for the QSO.
This is where I have the issue of a penality, the station the caused the error is not always the one that gets the penalty. Now I don't have the solution on how to properly penalize the station making the error, to me it is just morally wrong to assume people are guilty and penalize them for what sometimes is an error by someone else.
Now maybe some other old timers will remember this (guess I fit that
group) some contests use to have in their rules the reason a QSO was worth 2 points. 1 point was for accurately sending the information and
1 point was for accurately receiving the information. I'm suspect this was dropped at some point in time when they realized there is no way to determine if the information was accurately sent or not.
I'm fine with a penalty as long as the proper station is penalized.
Until then we need to return to what our legal system is based on, "innocent until proven guilty".
BillAC0W
 Message: 2
 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:36:14 -0700
 From: "Ed Muns"
 To: "'CQ-Contest'"
 Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
 Message-ID:
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 Not every contest imposes penalties on incorrectly logged QSOs, beyond  losing credit for the QSO. Contests that do impose penalties are simply  requiring higher accuracy, in balance with speed and quantity. It's just a  rule.

 Radiosport is unique compared to basketball, baseball, bowling and most all  sports because competitors must work together as a team to complete a  successful two-way QSO with each other.

 Ed W0YK
 _________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
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

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