[UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?

[G4LMW]

Do they?

I just checked with a couple of them and they say not.

Unless we are talking at cross-purposes? Do you mean that a QSO might be 
worth (say) 4 points, but you only lose a portion of that score for an 
error?

Otherwise, at VHF, "10" logged as "11" is a "fail".

Rob, G4LMW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Harrison" <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>; "UK Contesting" 
<uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?


> Hi,
>
> The VHF adjudicators seem to find the time to intervene with this sort of 
> error.
>
> Bob G8HGN
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>
> To: "UK Contesting" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?
>
>
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> All the adjudicators have to go by is what is in the other log. If 11 is 
>> ok
>> if logged as 10, then 15 is OK if logged as 75, after all it is only 1 
>> digit
>> out.
>>
>> Given that it is the same for everyone, I have no problem with the 
>> concept
>> that any error causes the loss of the QSO. Any other method of scoring
>> requires either far more complex programming or human intervention.
>>
>> 73
>> Rob, G4LMW
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Andy Summers" <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>
>> To: "UK Contesting" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?
>>
>>
>>> So, I now have my UBN report for BERU. Many thanks to all the hard work
>>> from
>>> the adjudicators and the software writers.
>>>
>>> I've never received a UBN report before, so it's been enlightening. I've
>>> never previously been able to see where my lost points have gone, so, at
>>> the
>>> risk of looking like an idiot for the second time in as many weeks, I 
>>> now
>>> have some general comments about scoring.
>>>
>>> The general HF rules state that any error at all results in the loss of
>>> all
>>> points. There's no ambiguity here, but I'm questioning whether that 
>>> should
>>> continue to be the case now that software can do much of the donkey 
>>> work.
>>>
>>> Two of my Q's were broken by the SerRx being out by just 1. How can the
>>> adjudicator be certain the sender wasn't looking at the wrong bit on his
>>> logging screen? The difference between 10 & 11 (one of the examples) is
>>> also
>>> quite distinct on CW. With my CW it probably was my fault, but it feels 
>>> a
>>> tad harsh to lose all the points in these instances. But I can also 
>>> recall
>>> plenty of instances in SSB Field Day where the sender omitted to append 
>>> /P
>>> to their callsign. Again, it seems harsh to lose all credit for the Q.
>>>
>>> It also feels pointless having more than 1 point per Q if we continue 
>>> with
>>> the status quo?
>>>
>>> Already looking forward to next year's BERU...
>>>
>>> 73 Andy, G4KNO.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Andy Summers <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I meant for BERU. Maybe I'm being a bit previous.
>>>> Andy.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Andy Summers
>>>> <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did anyone else not receive their UBN report? Maybe they're being sent
>>>>> in
>>>>> batches?
>>>>>
>>>>> 73 Andy, G4KNO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>