[CQ-Contest] Fwd: Dupes question

[Art Boyars]

(I neglected to include CQ-Contest Reflector.)

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Art Boyars <artboyars at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dupes question
To: JOHN GEIGER <af5cc1 at zohomail.com>


In the days of paper logs you were supposed to dupe your log AFTER the
contest and remove the dupes.  That was to get your real (honest) score
because, as you mentioned, your real time dupe checking was probably
inaccurate.

The penalty was to discourage laziness (not bothering to dupe the log) or
outright cheating (hoping you could get away with counting the dupes in
your score).

People did cheat, sad to say, but we're not surprised.  In addition to the
penalty for un-removed dupe QSOs, you could be disqualified if log checking
reduced your score by some threshold (3% comes to mind, but I'm not
sure, and that seems too generous).  There was a credible rumor/legend
about people who would remove just enough dupes to get under the DQ
threshold.  They would risk the penalty, but not the DQ.  In some Contests,
DQ meant you were DQ for the next running, too.

73, Art K3KU

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 6:06 PM JOHN GEIGER via CQ-Contest <
cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:

> This question came to me again thru a thread on eham.net but I have
> thought of this question during almost every contest but could never come
> up with an answer.
>
>
>
> In the old days we used paper logs with dupe sheets (remember those?).  If
> you left a duplicate QSO in your log, it was removed but you were also
> penalized 1-3 additional QSOs, depending on contest.  Now we have computer
> logging, where it immediately tells you if a station is a dupe.  However,
> you can leave dupe QSOs in your log (and are kind of encouraged to) with no
> penalty.
>
>
>
> Now this seems backwards-you were penalized when duping when determining
> dupes took more effort, but you are not penalized when duping is done
> automatically and is obvious to you.
>
>
>
> Does someone know the reasoning behind this?
>
>
>
> 73 John AF5CC
>
>
> Sent using {0}
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>