[CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
W0MU Mike Fatchett
w0mu at w0mu.com
Thu Apr 13 19:23:32 EDT 2017
Please show me in the rules where the X-Qso exemption is explained. I
have read the rules many times and I have yet to even find one reference
in the rules that talks about X-qsos.
Where in the rules does it say you can break the rules and it is ok?
I think the X-qso is a cop out for bad decision making and rule breaking.
I never said you cheated. I said that you admitted to breaking the
rules. Did you not?
W0MU
On 4/13/2017 11:27 AM, Martin Durham wrote:
>
> Mike I would appreciate a little clarification here...since you are
> 'admittedly' a black and white kind of person.
>
>
> 1. Are you saying that "I" and PJ4X knowingly violated the rules every
> year!!??
>
>
> 2. If the answer to '1' above is yes then I will emphatically request
> a retraction...PJ4X has not and does not 'cheat'. When operating a
> high 'energy' M/2 (and by energy I mean alpha personalities) mistakes
> occur. Someone jumps on a mult too quickly or the mult station
> operator forgets to leave 2 band changes for near the end of the hour
> so that we don't go over.
>
>
> This is pure bullshit. If you want to drive people out of the
> contesting world...keep it up.
>
>
> I'll be happy to share ANY year's PJ4X logs with anyone that wants to
> see them. I'm not worried about people learning our strategy or
> finding issues. The log is what it is. If the CQ contest committee is
> happy with it that's all I'm concerned about. I'm happy to let our
> PJ4X log stand against anyone else willing to put up...or shut up.
>
>
> This is NOT a black and white issue...
>
>
> I am expecting an apology...but I know I won't get it.
>
>
> M/2 is the most demanding of the Multi-operator configurations.
>
>
> M/S...easy...have a run radio and a second radio (or 5 more like
> certain stations do) that work just multipliers...
>
>
> M/M...easy...1 or 2 radios per band and you run and use 2S1's or some
> other device to ensure that you do not have two signals on a band at
> the same time.
>
>
> M/2...2 "RUN" radios and I say that intentionally...as most people who
> have operated a large M/2 either stateside or DX, you will have two
> stations that will sit on the 'open' bands for as long as they produce
> rate. A third (or fifth if you are using two per band) radio can then
> be configured with an additional lockout to allow "it" to work mult's
> on a third band to take advantage of those 8 band changes per hour per
> position. With all of that 'happening' people DO make mistakes. The
> MULT radio operator has to remember to ALT-Y to take over which ever
> radio has the most band changes left in the hour to ensure that we are
> not using up all the band changes...but people FORGET...especially
> during the evening hours. There is no BENEFIT to a M/2 to scrub the
> log with x-QSO's or even deleting (because that IS obvious)...X-QSO's
> allow the M/2 to leave the Q in so the other guy doesn't get
> dinged...and it is NOT COUNTED in the M/2's log...so again, how is it
> that this is a benefit?? You say it allows me to get away with
> breaking the rules...if anything it's a BENEFIT to the other guy
> because he gets to keep the mult but I lose the Q. Keep in mind unless
> there are 2 stations on from PJ4 (which is happening more now)...EVERY
> station that works us is working US for their only PJ4 multiplier...
>
>
> You think we like to have 9 band changes in an hour?? You think that
> is Cheating??? It's exactly why the X-QSO was setup in the Cabrillo
> file (or one of the reason at least) in my opinion. The station that
> made the mistake loses credit for the Q but the station on the other
> end does not.
>
>
> How the HELL is that cheating?? Show me the benefit, because I've been
> missing it for about 20 years...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:17:40 AM
> *To:* Martin Durham; cq-contest at contesting.com
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>
> I believe this example clearly shows the problem. Every year this
> station has violated the rules. He knew how to fix the log so there
> would be no or little penalty. The ability to fix these
> transgressions is not published in the rules, so how many other
> stations, took a chance, or reclassified to MM or didn't bother to
> send in a log.
>
>
> I appreciate Martin's honesty but at some point are the operators not
> responsible for following the rules? If not, why have any rules and
> why list top 10's? Can you explain to me why it is so difficult for
> your team to adhere to the written rules and not follow the 10 minute
> rule? I honestly do not understand and when it happens over and over
> it sure makes me wonder. Software glitches aside it is still the
> responsibility of the operators to follow the rules.
>
>
> While a clear path to cheating or exploiting may not be clear right
> now, I can assure you that because of the cultural differences we
> share, people are working on ways to use this (new to me) knowledge to
> their advantage. am just saying that now that this can of worms is
> open, are we ready for any unintended consequences.
>
>
> How does an X-Qso benefit you? You just stated it. You broke the
> rules many times yet nothing happened. That seems like a big benefit
> to me.
>
>
> W0MU
>
>
> On 4/13/2017 4:04 AM, Martin Durham wrote:
>>
>> What??? Benefit Multi's (and it's only Multi-2's really that are hit
>> with this) how?? If you are inside the 10min band change window your
>> choices are:
>>
>>
>> 1. Delete the Q's...cleans your log but hurts the other guy
>>
>> 2. Use the 'little x's' as you say. This clearly shows you cannot
>> count these calls in your log but rather than 'scrub' the log you are
>> admitting you were 'early' on the band change and don't want the
>> other guys to be penalized. X the Q so the other guy doesn't get
>> penalized.
>>
>> 3. Do neither and take the multi-Q penalty for each band change or
>> 10min rule violation.
>>
>>
>> So, I find it hard to see a way this benefits the multi-op in any of
>> these scenarios...2 and 3 the Multi-op is being honest and up front
>> about the mistake (a 1 stroke penalty in golf if you will)...1 hurt's
>> the other guy and still only benefits the Multi from a penalty.
>> X-Qso's make a lot of sense.
>>
>>
>> Virtually every PJ4X log I have submitted over the years for WWSSB
>> has had at least one band-change violation (M/2)...in one year we had
>> 160Q's docked because of an issue with the logging software itself.
>> We worked with the contest adjudicators and still lost Q's, but not
>> to that level.
>>
>>
>> So...please...explain how a M/2 benefits from the X-QSO?
>>
>>
>> W1MD
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of
>> W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:29:00 PM
>> *To:* cq-contest at contesting.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
>> 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/
>> <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