[CQ-Contest] Dupes question

[Stan Zawrotny]

Ron,

That is why *everyone *needs to set their loggers to accept dupes. Of
someone's logger rejects your contact, nothing can be done except to tell
the other party to change the setting.

Unfortunately, there are a few ops who do not keep up with the times.

All that you can do in that situation, if they still insist on not
accepting your entry, is for you to go back in your log to try to find a
possible error where you entered the wrong callsign. If you don't fix it,
the contest robot may give you a NIL for that entry. This editing is
acceptable because you are doing it based on QSOs made with the correct
callsign.
__________
Stan, K4SBZ





On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 11:26 AM Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
wrote:

> Unfortunately Stan, not everyone agrees with your statement.
>
> I was only on for a few hours last weekend, between work and family
> issues.  A particular DX station on 15 would not work me, saying multiple
> times I was a Dupe.  Told him every time that his call was NOT in my log...
> no matter, he wouldn't do it.  Oh well.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> On Friday, November 1, 2024 at 10:07:34 AM EDT, Stanley Zawrotny <
> k4sbz.stan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>