[CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)
Igor Sokolov
ua9cdc at gmail.com
Thu Nov 10 18:48:48 EST 2016
Ward,
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