[CQ-Contest] Dupes question

[Stanley Zawrotny]

They realized that what you think is a dupe may actually be an error made by either end during the first QSO. If you deny the dupe, both of you may loose the Q. If you accept the dupe, you will both get credit and the busted QSO is ignored. If it is actually a dupe, with no error, then one of the Qs will just be ignored. No harm, no foul.

Always accept dupes. If you logger won’t accept it, there is a setting somewhere that says to accept dupes.

Stan, K4SBZ

"Real radio bounces off the sky."

> On Nov 1, 2024, at 9:11 AM, Richard Ferch <ve3iay at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My rationalization goes as follows:
> 
> In the old days, before computer log checking, de-duping and re-scoring
> submitted logs would have been an onerous chore for the adjudicators. I
> would guess that it was probably not done for all logs, perhaps only for
> top scores or near-ties.
> 
> One of the easiest ways to cheat on your total score would have been simply
> to include dupes in your score, with what might have been a reasonable
> chance of not being detected. So, a disincentive would have been needed to
> ensure that entrants did their own de-duping before calculating their
> scores. Hence the penalties.
> 
> Nowadays, it is impossible to cheat that way, because every log is de-duped
> and re-scored automatically by the log checking software. In fact, the
> adjudicators want dupe contacts left in, because they can be useful for
> cross-checking.
> 
> 73,
> Rich VE3KI
> 
> 
> AF5CC 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest