[Fourlanders] FW: [VHFcontesting] June 06 VHF QSO Party LCRs nowavailable

Thu Dec 21 17:59:28 EST 2006

Jim and all the 4-Landers >

Then why can't the penalty points assessed, based on electronic data mining, be challenged if it is not in the rules ?? 

This now somewhat penalizes electronic log submissions and provides an advantage to paper log submittals. Now I understand why rule 8.2 states>

 "Stations that use computers to log must send the electronic log in the Cabrillo file format for entry into the results. Submitted electronic files must be in ASCII / text readable format. A paper printout of an electronically created log is not an acceptable substitute for the required log file"

This is simply because paper logs will not be entered into the electronic database and not be subject to this massive compiling of data, which now spits out the anomalies on a report, which then raises the eyebrows of the ARRL referee, which then "penalizes both teams for unsportsmanlike conduct because they couldn't determine which player caused the foul in the first place, even though one player didn't break any rule".

Arbitrary and undefined "excessive" mistakes rulings (when made by another station you have no control of, made by computer data transfer, OR determined by the ARRL referee) and known data transfer anomalies (as admitted by the ARRL) to this type of data mining used to "adjust scores" will start to alienate folks and eventually encourage counter productive behavior on the part of participants.  

By counter productive, I mean logging a certain number of call signs of friends not participating in the contest or won't be turning in logs (non-disputable contacts) just to make up for the historical percentage of authentic Q's you can anticipate not getting credit for !!!

If I were a station on the fence of establishing a new division record and was cut by 30 Q points (and possible multipliers) based on a few or all of the above possible scenarios hitting my score, I would be extremely....................(you fill in the rest) 

I find it interesting that this announcement (or posting) came out AFTER the results have been posted and you have no recourse for challenge or correction.  While I find this to be an interesting tool, to apply the results and adjust scores without equal application (paper logs) or proper public notice  is somewhat "underhanded". 

Because this can't be applied equally across all log submissions (paper or electronic), I think we might be on the verge of going in the wrong direction if we are not careful here.  Do they do this now for Field Day and the major DX contest scores ???

By the way, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my good Four Lander friends. 
I hope 2007 brings you wealth and good health !!

Ron
WW8RR

(If I sound like I'm venting, it's because December has delivered a series of depressing events, loss of friends,  and controversial announcements from the FCC, the ARRL, and the NCVEC. This is just another irritation)

________________________________

From: Jim Worsham [mailto:wa4kxy at bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thu 12/21/2006 4:04 PM
To: Rogers, Ron; fourlanders at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [Fourlanders] FW: [VHFcontesting] June 06 VHF QSO Party LCRs nowavailable

Yep, kind of sucks doesn't it.  Now that they have the data in a form that they can do data mining who knows what they will come up with next.  The thing I find interesting is that being someone who has read the rules thoroughly (VUAC thing) I can tell you that there is NOTHING in the rules about deducting penalty points.  The rules say that they can disallow Qs and if the number of Qs disallowed is excessive (they don't define what excessive is though) you can be DQed.

73
Jim, W4KXY

________________________________

From: Rogers, Ron [mailto:RR124640 at ncr.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 8:26 AM
To: wa4kxy at bellsouth.net; fourlanders at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [Fourlanders] FW: [VHFcontesting] June 06 VHF QSO Party LCRs nowavailable

So.......we now get penalized (arbitrarily) if another station screws up and does not log us correctly and we have no control of that ?!?!

Hummmmm........

So how long before they do more data mining and start to dock you Qs if the logged times don't match up within 30 seconds ?

Ron
WW8RR

________________________________

From: fourlanders-bounces at contesting.com on behalf of Jim Worsham
Sent: Thu 12/21/2006 1:26 AM
To: fourlanders at contesting.com
Subject: [Fourlanders] FW: [VHFcontesting] June 06 VHF QSO Party LCRs nowavailable

Go to this link:
http://www.arrl.org/members-only/contests/lcr.html?con_id=105&call=W4NH and
check out our Log Checking Report (LCR).  Not terrible but we lost 34 Qs.
Most of the mistakes seem to be fumble finger things.  Be really careful
about entering the callsign correctly.  If the call sign is wrong they not
only dock you the Q that hit you with a 1 Q penalty!  There is also a 1 Q
penalty if we aren't in the other stations log.

73
Jim, W4KXY

-----Original Message-----
From: vhfcontesting-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of K2DRH Bob N2KMA
Fran
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:01 PM
To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
Subject: [VHFcontesting] June 06 VHF QSO Party LCRs now available

 LCRs (log-checking reports) for the ARRL June 06 VHF QSO Party are now
available on the ARRL website to members only.   This is the first time to
my knowledge this information has ever been made available for a VHF
contest.  While there seems to be a few small glitches in the log checking,
it's pretty darn good and very informative to know how your log compares to
others.

Some of the local SMC VHFers have noticed that several QSO's that we lost,
we all had in common, and  these were actually due to other stations' log
errors.  One station apparently gave out his correct grid in the contest but
somehow had the wrong one in his log invalidating every contact anyone made
with him (but apparently not his own).  Another station typed his own call
incorrectly in his logger program (a classic zero for O swap) and caused a
similar problem!  I lost several QSOs from rovers that for some reson didn't
log one band as we ran through them, and others from multiops that didn't
log band QSOs I'm sure we made.  In fact no QSOs with any SO stations were
NIL.  I realize that rovers have the toughest logging conditions and can
inadvertantly miss a few, but I'd never thought that multis would have that
challenge too.  The ones on the higher bands really hurt since they cost an
additional QSO penalty from that band too!  In my case two of these were
also mults (ouch)!  On the other hand I busted several calls all on my own,
one of them an incredibly stupid typo since it was from a WSJT sked (DOH!)!
While the LCR report notes the dupes and uniques, there is no penalty for
them ... unless they are excessive.  I leave the dupes in my log so others
can still get credit for the QSO if they forgot to log it the first time,
but don't count them in the claimed score.

In the report the ARRL gives my error tally as:
       7 (0.6%) calls copied incorrectly
       1 (0.1%) exchanges copied incorrectly
       8 (0.7%) not in log

98.6% accuracy ... 16 out of 1212 QSOs flagged.  While over half these
errors would not have been assessed had other stations logged accurately,
I'm still very pleased with this result even though it reduced my score by
over 20K.  It sure doesn't take much!   Lets hope the ARRL makes this VHF
LCR a habit so we can see where we make our mistakes and learn from them!

73 de Bob K2DRH

_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

_______________________________________________
Fourlanders mailing list
Fourlanders at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/fourlanders