[CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing

Joe nss at mwt.net
Thu Apr 13 08:42:57 EDT 2017 

With the SDR's all around now where they can record the whole contest,
I feel if what has happened possibly here is suspected, a simple check 
of the recordings, should show if they indeed just kept operating, and 
then post contest removed the lower value contacts to benefit longer 
operating time.

If this is found a DQ is a MUST, AND possible DQ for following year 
Probation. Doing this is NOT a mistake, it is deliberate and MUST have 
strong consequences.

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/12/2017 4:29 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> So with this logic, it would benefit any Multis to break the 10 minute 
> rules all the time and them scrub the log with little X's and remove 
> the qso's that benefit them the least?  Is that what happened in 
> 2016?  Will we ever know the rest of the story.  Will these Multi's be 
> made public and asked to provide some explanations?  If the Multi in 
> question had used little X's at least other participants would not 
> have been damaged while the multi get off scott free?
>
> A golfer that attempts to hide a mistake will be DQed.  They also have 
> very stiff penalties in the form of strokes that are added to their 
> score where winners and losers are decided by 1 stroke many many times.
>
> Car racing you exceed the pit speed limit, you lose a lap.  Good luck 
> winning.  It can happen but not often
>
> If you don't run the right course on a running race, you get a DQ.  
> Step over the line tossing a javelin and the toss does not count I can 
> go on for a long time about many other sporting competitions where you 
> are penalized for breaking the rules.  Not in contesting.  Sorry about 
> that 12 or 15 minutes of extra time, self spots, excessive power and 
> on and on and most just want to look the other way.
>
> Should multi's that can't count to 10 be penalized 2 to 10 mults per 
> occurrence?   You break the 10 minute rule by choice.  It is part of 
> the game to get it right, just like copying callsigns. Using a little 
> X to make things right does not sit well with me. Maybe they should 
> lose 10 minutes of qso's on both sides of the mistake?
>
> Brain cramps?  Mistakes or calculated choices?  That is hard to judge.
>
> How about people follow the rules instead of giving people more ways 
> to game the game?  The rules are pretty freaking simple.  The only 
> reason people keep pushing the rules is that very little is ever 
> done.  We can't embarrass our buddies, that club needs the points to 
> win, etc.
>
> I have no empathy for those that can't managed to do the right things 
> and have a boat load of excuses why they broke said rules.
>
> Are we to the point where we just give everyone the same certificate 
> to make everyone feel wonderful in radio contesting?
>
> The unassisted guy the uses packet and then claims Unassisted and 
> scrubs a few packet contacts to make it look better with some cute 
> little X's?
>
> Intentionally deleting contacts to avoid a 10 minute issue lacks any 
> integrity and honesty.  I find it hard to believe that people would 
> support it.
>
> Self spotting?  Who cares.  People build skimmers and put them at 
> friends houses or at their own to get spotted on CW and RTTY. What is 
> the difference?  We had a huge discussion about this and I think most 
> people seemed to agree that limited self spotting would actually 
> benefit the contest.
>
> To allow people to break the rules and then just allow them off the 
> hook with an X in a log is a total joke and insults the rest of us 
> that can read and follow the rules.
>
> W0MU
>
>
> On 4/12/2017 10:54 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>> (This is directed at the thread, not to counter anything written by 
>> K3ZJ)
>>
>> The X-QSO tool is a sound practice of correcting for brain cramps. I 
>> do not believe anyone would want a big multi-op station’s entire 
>> weekend ruined by inadvertently screwing up the 10-minute rule or 
>> misjudging when to get back on after a mandated break period. X-QSO 
>> allows for that, as you are not claiming credit for QSOs made in 
>> violation.
>>
>> Golf is one of the most-scrutinized ‘honor’ sports there is, to the 
>> point viewers on TV can even spot violations and notify organizers by 
>> email. However, even if such violations prove true, the golfer’s 
>> entire tournament is not necessarily lost: a penalty is applied for 
>> failing to claim a stroke and a further penalty is claimed for filing 
>> a false scorecard.
>>
>> However, if the golfer identifies the violation and records the 
>> appropriate penalty before submitting the scorecard, all is good. 
>> This can happen at ANY TIME before submitting the card — at the time 
>> of the violation or after holing out the 18th. Either way, the score 
>> still counts, even if failing to record a penalty carries very 
>> punitive consequences.
>>
>> Is the X-QSO not the same as saying, “Hey, I moved that ball before 
>> striking it, so I’m taking the penalty stroke.”?
>>
>> The scenario raised features an unassisted op working a bunch of 
>> packet spots and then marking each as X-QSO. This is interesting, but 
>> I don’t see the point, since X-QSO means the QSOs don't count at all: 
>> you don’t get the QSO points nor do you get the multipliers. It’s in 
>> the log so the people you worked don’t pay for your mistake, but you 
>> gain no benefit from the QSOs.
>>
>>
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2017, at 6:13 AM, David Siddall <hhamwv at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> To be clear in context and for *most* contests, for mono band 
>>> (single band)
>>> entries, there is no need to use the "X-QSO" function for QSOs on a
>>> different band. Assuming that your single band category is correctly
>>> identified in the cabrillo file, all QSOs on a different band (1) 
>>> will be
>>> disregarded for purposes of your submission but (2) counted for the
>>> correspondent station.  The "X-QSO" function is to remove QSOs from 
>>> your
>>> score within your category that otherwise would be included.
>>>
>>> 73, Dave K3ZJ
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd at charter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This will depend on the contest.  For CQWW, the other station should
>>>> receive
>>>> credit for the QSO.
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Peter Voelpel [mailto:dj7ww at t-online.de]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:38 AM
>>>>> To: k5zd at charter.net
>>>>> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Randy,
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens to the other station?
>>>>>
>>>>> I had two QSOs in CQWW 2016 marked with X on a different band 
>>>>> while doing
>>>>> mono band.
>>>>> Both qsos are listed under "Stations Receiving Not In Log From 
>>>>> DJ7WW".
>>>>> Their public logs show them both.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On 
>>>>> Behalf Of
>>>>> Randy Thompson K5ZD
>>>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 12. April 2017 12:19
>>>>> To: john at kk9a.com; cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>>>>>
>>>>> The Cabrillo specification does allow for this.  See
>>>>> https://wwrof.org/cabrillo/cabrillo-specification-v3/
>>>>>
>>>>> X-QSO: qso-data
>>>>> Any QSO marked with this tag will be ignored in your log. Use to mark
>>>>> QSOs made that you do not want to count toward your score.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This tag was created to give people a way to mark a QSO as not 
>>>>> counting
>>>>> and not have to remove it from their log.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: Not every contest may accept this tag, but it is recognized 
>>>>> by the
>>>>> major contests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Randy, K5ZD
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On 
>>>>>> Behalf
>>>>>> Of john at kk9a.com
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:45 AM
>>>>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a way to have some unclaimed QSOs in a cabrillo file?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John KK9A
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>>>> Subject:    Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>>>>>> From:       "Dick Green WC1M"
>>>>>> Date:       Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:31:33 -0400
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was advised to do that by K3EST for the 8P8P CQ WW SSB M/S log 
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> we discovered that a bug in our logging software caused us to make a
>>>>>> significant number of QSOs outside the 10-minute window. This was 
>>>>>> back
>>>>>> in the days when log scrubbing wasn't as strongly discouraged as 
>>>>>> it is
>>>>> now.
>>>>>> I don't know what the CQ WW CC would advise today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73, Dick WC1M
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list