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

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I think we have turned the cheek far too many times and now have an 
environment of pushing the rules, break the rules, etc.  A bunch of 
people were caught self spotting.  How many fessed up?  None to my 
knowledge and few that made up some pretty interesting stories from the 
sounds of it.

I agree that reasonable use is fine.  What is reasonable and does this 
reasonable use encourage inappropriate actions?  If you give an inch 
they take a mile or insert some  other cliche of your liking.

Will the rules be changed to reflect that if you happen to break the 10 
minute rule or some other rule just go back and fix those contacts with 
an X?  Isn't that contrary to the push to send in your logs immediately 
and stop messing with them?  I just think this could be opening up a can 
of worms or nothing will change as the majority of the entrants are not 
even aware that such a mechanism exists.

I am a fairly black and white thinker.  The rules are the rules.  It is 
unsettling that now I find out that the rules are just kinda the rules.

The X qso's has wandered off the original issue of the possible 
scrubbing of a log or logs.  It does not really solve a problem is just 
ignores some.

W0MU




On 4/13/2017 12:20 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I agree this is getting old, but I don’t think that’s because there is anything wrong with reasonable use of X-QSO to deal with instances where you don’t wish to break the rules but don’t wish to hide anything or penalize other guys, either.
>
> I think I’ve made it pretty clear you cannot use X-QSO to flout the rules to your advantage. So what’s the problem?
>
> You’ve got nothing to gain by making QSOs you can’t count, and nothing to gain by conspiring to make QSOs you plan to X out. And if a log shows an American was operating USB on 14.148, the contest organizer should have the right to DQ that op based on not honoring the laws of his country, regardless of whether he X-QSOd the QSOs. Claimed for score or not, they were still against the law.
>
> Contesting has nothing to gain by being unreasonably harsh on rules “violations" that — because you don’t claim credit for the underlying QSO — don’t mean anything. The 10-minute band-change rule exists to preserve the characteristics of a certain operating category, not to protect society from a resulting rip in the space-time continuum.
>
> If you messed up and then fessed up, what have you gained? Nada. You get no points. You get no multipliers. You’ve robbed yourself of QSOs you could have made, and claimed, on the first band. It’s a net loss, actually. The characteristic of the category is preserved.
>
> And in this case, if you did game the system and worked a bunch of guys in flagrant violation of the rule only to X them out, what have you gained? Again, less than zero, because now you’ve robbed yourself of QSOs you could have made, and claimed, on the first band. Especially since the 10-minute timer starts with the first QSO after a band change, not the last one.
>
> In my SS example, there is zero wiggle room for saying “Oh, I ended my break 10 minutes early, so I’m going to X-QSO those QSOs.” Or worse: “I was listening throughout my break and realized if I jumped back in 10 minutes early, I’d make way more QSOs than I did in the 10 minutes leading up to the break, so I’m just going to X-QSO enough QSOs to time-shift the start of my break and maintain that 30-minute minimum.” The League would know you were gaming the system.
>
> There is little to be gained in this discussion from carrying it to extremes.
>
> This has nothing to do with turning a blind eye. The other cheek, perhaps, but not a blind eye.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
>
>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 12:21 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
>>
>> If X-Qso's were widely understood and accepted by all, you might have a point.  I think the delete key has been a key player for too long.  All contests do not accept this logging practice and what percent of the participants even know about this?  Less than 10 percent, less than 1?
>>
>> I guess log checking routines now need to look at NIL contacts with a station and see if there are other contacts around that period of time that also showed a qso but those qso are not in the other stations logs.
>>
>> Yes Lexi Thompson was penalized after the fact and was again flagged for signing what was unknown to her at the time a scorecard that was wrong and further penalized, which many feel was over the top. The golfer faces a penalty for breaking the rules.  Why is a radio sport/contest competitor not penalized? What is an appropriate penalty for breaking the rules?  Contact outside the band edges, poor clock management, etc.  I agree that the stations worked in that time period should not be the damaged parties as they are now.
>>
>> Where is the line drawn on honest mistakes and calculated risks knowing that we have a group of over worked and under paid volunteers?
>>
>> I am not a proponent of looking the other way and giving people the benefit of the doubt.  Too many times this benefit is being abused by people gaming the game.   Gaming the game is part of the sport for too many in this game.  The rules are quite clear. Following the rules is part of the game, lack of sleep and other distractions are excuses for rule breaking.  Did the golfer place the ball in a different spot for avoid a bad lie?  Only the golfer knows but the penalty is the same if you did it by mistake or on purpose.
>>
>> What will it be next contest?  If people would stop this nonsense then maybe we could get back to talking and promoting our sport instead of having to deal something new every major contest.  It is getting old.
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/12/2017 9:51 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> Who’s to say it wouldn’t be obvious if someone was gaming the system?
>>>
>>> A station that changes bands continuously throughout a 10-minute window would clearly be breaking the rules, X-QSO or not.
>>>
>>> Remember, X-QSO doesn’t scrub incriminating evidence from logs, rather, it leaves that evidence intact. It just means you don’t get credit for X-QSOs. The log checkers would still see you were flouting the rules.
>>>
>>> Nobody is saying you can use X-QSO as a cover for flagrant violations. Why assume otherwise?
>>>
>>> We already have a catchall of “unsportsmanlike conduct” that can be used to reclassify logs as checklogs, or DQ the station. It would seem pretty clear to me that if a station works someone nine minutes, 36 seconds into a 10-minute window and then X-QSOs it and doesn’t work another station till 10 minutes is up, it was just an “Ooops.” The X-QSO means there was zero benefit to the station making that mistake, and there’s zero benefit to making a zero-benefit QSO.
>>>
>>> Another example is SS: you can only work 24 hours, and your six hours off have to be clearly marked. And they have to actually be OFF times. You could not work all 30 hours, X-QSO the worst six hours and expect to be cleared of violating that rule. The evidence would be staring the log checkers in the face!
>>>
>>> A golfer who files an incorrect scorecard is not DQd. A week or two ago, Lexi Thompson did just that and went on to lose by only one point: a viewer emailed the LPGA alleging she didn’t, in round 3, place her ball on the exact same spot on the green from which she picked it up. The next day, she was informed she was getting a two-stroke penalty for moving the ball and a two-stroke penalty for filing an incorrect scorecard the day before. So your assertion golfers are DQd in this instance is not supported by recent history.
>>>
>>> However, the LPGA would have the option of DQing someone for repeated unclaimed violations.
>>>
>>> I don’t think contesting — where a win is worth nothing but bragging rights — needs to be stricter than a sport watched by millions with millions of dollars on the line for winners. Do you?
>>>
>>> X-QSO is a way to be honest with the log checkers. It’s a way of saying ‘Hey, I worked this guy, I shouldn’t have, and I’m not claiming it.’ It’s the equivalent of a golfer, on hole 18, saying, “You know, on reflection, I should take this number of penalty strokes because I’m pretty sure now that I touched the sand in that bunker on 8.” It’s not hiding anything.
>>>
>>> You can’t “scrub” logs with X-QSO, but X-QSO is a more honest fix than what was available previously, which was using the ‘delete’ key.
>>>
>>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 12, 2017, at 4:29 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com> 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