[CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty

Fri Apr 15 13:45:51 EDT 2016

Wes: There was a time when the government did give out radios. In the
1960's, join Civil Defense, and there were 2 meter Gonsets given out -- not
an unlimited supply, but it did make the band quite active.--73, Mike,
WV2ZOW

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Wes Jennings <wjennings2011 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> why would anyone not want a q or work for a q and contesting .... this
> just makes about as much sense as saying the government is there to give ya
> radios
>
> ________________________________________
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of
> sbloom at acsalaska.net <sbloom at acsalaska.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:39 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
>
> BTW folks:
>
> I think most here know this ..but ..if I (or really any of the
> Alaskans) gives you a nil after a few tries ..I promise that we're not
> doing this ...we really do have an awful lot of one way propagation
> .and much more QSB that most (I think) ..when that is going on
> .sometimes we'll just lose you completely ..or figure we're more
> likely to hae a  valid q later by emphasizing that the Q hadn't been
> made.
>
> 73
> Steve KL7SB
>
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:32:54 -0500, Kelly Taylor  wrote:
>
>        Regardless of the contest’s scoring, not giving an honest
> effort to copy someone who has called you is, at best, unsportsmanlike.
> It might not work out in the end, but not even trying?
>
> I can think of worse words, but in the interests of civility, I’ll
> stick to unsportsmanlike.
>
> That said, it has happened to me. Once, my payoff at the end was
> discovering the same station missed his sweep by, you guessed it,
> Manitoba! Karma!
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
> > On Apr 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Michael Clarson  wrote:
> >
> > Ken: I've experienced this from the other end. Working a station on SSB,
> he
> > repeats my call back incorrectly several times, then he gives me a QSL
> > without repeating my call., and moves on. Sure enough -- I am not in his
> > log at all, I got a penalty because I logged the QSO based on what the
> > other station sent. --Mike, WV2ZOW
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Ken K6MR  wrote:
> >
> >> It would seem that the additional penalty rule hurts the LP/QRP folks
> the
> >> most: they are more likely to have marginal signals. If I have trouble
> >> copying I’m more likely to declare NIL (or worse, not respond in the
> first
> >> place) if I know that busting the Q would result in additional
> penalties.
> >> If I’m just going to lose the Q then it’s worth taking the chance.
> >>
> >> Ken K6MR
> >>
> >> From: Alan Dewey via CQ-Contest
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 14:36
> >> To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
> >>
> >> I don't have a problem with penalty QSOs. I just consider it part of my
> >> contest strategy. How much time do I spend trying to get the call right
> >> before just leaving it in the log and going on. If I knew I was going to
> >> get
> >> a penalty, I would spend a lot more time trying to get the call right.
> If
> >> there was no penalty, I would be more likely to just go on (especially
> if
> >> I
> >> had a good run going) knowing the worst that could happen is that I
> would
> >> lose the QSO.
> >>
> >> I compete with a guy here in MN who has an extremely accurate log -
> often a
> >> golden log. I know that I have to either minimize my errors or find a
> way
> >> to exceed his score by a comfortable "buffer". This is a motivator for
> me
> >> to do better.
> >>
> >> As someone has stated, most penalties are imposed only when the CALL is
> >> copied wrong. If you miscopy, say, the check in SS, you are going to
> lose
> >> the Q but no penalty.
> >>
> >> There is only one thing that bothers me about the penalty QSOs. If I
> >> decided to delete the QSO (after several unsuccessful efforts to get it
> >> right
> >> due to QRM and QSB), it keeps me from being penalized but it ends up
> >> penalizing the guy who thought he had made the QSO with me. I'm not sure
> >> what can
> >> be done about that.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> Al, K0AD
> >>
> >>
> >> In a message dated 4/13/2016 8:04:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> >> kzerohb at gmail.com writes:
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>