[CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)

Igor Sokolov ua9cdc at gmail.com
Thu Nov 10 18:48:48 EST 2016

Very interesting. But this approach begs  the question: If prescription 
finally got wrong (name of the medicine or dosage) who's fault is it? 
Transmitter or receiver? Should not both sides be penalized?

73, Igor UA9CDC

----- Исходное сообщение ----- 
От: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil at gmail.com>
Кому: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Отправлено: 10 ноября 2016 г. 21:18
Тема: Re: [CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)

> > If it wasn't a penmanship contest then, why is it a typing contest now?
> At the risk of setting off a "plastic owl pointing true north by remote 
> control" thread...
> Why is it that we have contests at all?  It is to practice our ability to 
> communicate and to reward effectiveness - in whatever form that takes. 
> Part of it is knowing when the bands are open and closed.  Part of it is 
> assembling a station that works well.  Part of it is having good operating 
> technique.  And part of it is accurately transcribing the exchanged 
> information into whatever format is required.
> We are fond of claiming that contesting makes us good public service 
> operators and all that back-patting we do for ourselves.  Imagine we are 
> relaying orders for prescription medicines needed in a disaster area.  Is 
> a typo in "hydrochlorothiazide" acceptable because we were in a hurry? 
> ("Can you give me that phonetically before the band closes?")  Is 
> mistakenly changing a dosage of 50 mg to 500 mg OK because we hit 0 twice? 
> ("Whoa - how did that huge hairy bat get in here?")  Of course not...we 
> would recognize that as an error and we should do so when N0AX gets 
> changed to N0XA.  Each unforced error needs to produce negative feedback 
> so we will work to lower our error rate.  The CQ WW introduction of 
> penalties for errors was exactly the right remedy for sloppy operating 
> because it provides both carrot and stick to operate at a rate no faster 
> than what optimizes effective operating.  Nothing is error-free but a 
> three-QSO penalty has a way of focusing the mind.
> At any rate (so to speak), anything noted during the period of competition 
> is fair game for log correction.  I would prefer in the long term that 
> QSOs are submitted in real-time and verified shortly thereafter so that 
> this whole notion of "log" goes away along with all the misbehavior and 
> delays it engenders, but in the mean time, transcription into the 
> submitted record of competition is as much a part of the contest as 
> transmitting the information in the first place.
> 73, Ward N0AX
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest 

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list