[UK-CONTEST] Not sending what you key in

[Clive GM3POI]

I believe the onus of and exchange being correctly logged falls on, and 
only on the receiver.
	Also there should be a penalty greater than just loosing the Q for 
callsign errors. Otherwise an individual may as well just guess or rely 
on the SCP, he looses nothing if there is no additional penalty. The 
loss of an additional  Q or Qs will make most more attentive in getting 
it right.
	The RSGB appears to be one of the only major contest organisers, that 
do not apply the penalties used at the ARRL or CQ, is it therefore any 
wonder why standards in the UK are not improving that much.  73 Clive GM3POI

On 15/08/2011 07:56, Bob Henderson wrote:
> Hi Barry
>
> I agree it is easy to understand.  Though I doubt many serious contesters
> will these days accept the increased risk associated with divorcing what is
> sent from what is logged.  An own goal for sure.
>
> My point is that communication would be improved were the sender to share
> responsibility for accurate receipt.  This mostly isn't the case.  Of
> course, what I suggest isn't going to happen any time soon because it would
> disturb established exchange dynamics. To illustrate:
>
> Me: Test P3F
> You: GM3YEH
> Me: GM3YEH 5nn
> You: 5nn
> Me: TU
> Then: W2YZ etc
>
> The above conveys a typical contest exchange.  Note that the station I work
> never actually sends my call.  How might I know if he has copied me as P3L?
> I can't.  This underlines the inequity in penalising me as a consequence of
> him logging P3L.  I must assume my QSO partner can accurately read my CW.
> Very sloppy!
>
> Greater efficacy would arise were both parties penalised for imperfect two
> way communication.  I don't see any need for penalties of multiple QSO
> points merely zero points for the contact.
>
> As I said this ain't going to happen soon, if not for any other reason than
> it would disturb the status quo significantly, at least so far as contest
> records are concerned.  This because the current "efficient" exchange format
> would suddenly become a hazard to be averted and rate reduction would
> result.  Viz:
>
> Me: Test P3F
> You: P3F (de) GM3YEH
> Me: GM3YEH 5nn
> You: 5nn
> Me: TU
>
> Suddenly you need to send my call because I now need confidence you know who
> I am.
>
> Perish the thought.  ;-)
>
> Bob, 5B4AGN
>
>
> On 14 August 2011 19:36, GM3YEH<gm3yeh at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Bob,
>> In routine CW QSOs D2SG Craig (aka MM0SSG) doesn't use ESM.  What he types
>> goes into the log but what he sends comes from his paddles.  The scenario
>> Tom describes is easy to understand when this is taken into account.
>> 73 Barry GM3YEH.
>>
>>
>>> On 13 Aug 2011 at 11:15, Tom GM4FDM wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmmmmm.    I am qsl manager for Craig  D2SG.    In his last log there
>>>> were 12 instances of    where he had keyed in an O  instead of a 0
>>>> (zero)    like MOAXT instead of M0AXT  there were two instances of
>> where
>>>> Craig had keyed in an I instead of a 1.  So these QSOs did not match in
>>>> LOTW.
>>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bob Henderson<bob.5b4agn at gmail.com>
>>> To: UK Contest Reflector<uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:42:22 +0000
>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Who loses points for bad QSO?
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> You mean you don't send what you key in?
>>>
>>> Bob, 5B4AGN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>