[UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?

Peter Hobbs peter at tilgate.co.uk
Mon Jul 18 19:33:21 PDT 2011 

CQ recommend (in fact request) that everyone makes a recording of their 
contest to provide evidence of one sort or another in case of need.  
RSGB doesn't comment on this but I usually do so anyway (not exactly 
time consuming).  So I checked my 3 busted numbers - 2 of them were 
doubtful (QRJ/QSB) but one was clearly correct (and repeated twice) as I 
logged it (one out).  I know adjudicators will not have the resources to 
check up on all of these but it seems possible to check if someone else 
also received the same number that I copied (correctly) and if not to 
raise a query on the bust.  Is there any procedure for doing this?

BTW loss of all points for any bust is quite a recent innovation for 
RSGB, I think introduced at around the same time as automated 
adjudication, prior to which one point per error was lost, although I 
don't think this applied to callsign errors.   No problem with this, but 
I suspect most people will want to keep the original scoring arrangement 
anyway for ease of comparison with earlier years.

73, Peter G3LET

G4LMW wrote:

>Ah, I see
>
>Indeed, I have done the same (at HF). On many occasions, the distant station 
>consistently (though not always) sends some of their info incorrectly. This 
>is clear from the other logs. A good example is a portable station not 
>always sending the "/P". If a good proportion of the logs have the call 
>without the suffix, then I would score both versions as correct.
>
>Likewise, if a station is clearly sending serials incorrectly (in other 
>words, they consistently appear incorrect in many other logs) then the same 
>applies and I would remove all penalties.
>
>However, Andy's point seemed to suggest that a single error in his log might 
>be attributable to the distant station. This may well be so, but we have to 
>draw the line somewhere and without evidence of multiple errors in other 
>logs, the QSO would be busted.
>
>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 4:56 PM
>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?
>
>
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>No, I was saying that a human would intervene if something such as a 
>>serial
>>number was in error to assess who made the error. Rather than the
>>presumption "you" got it wrong, rather than the other end sending one 
>>serial
>>and logging another in his log.
>>
>>I had an email exchange with one of the VHF adjudicators over this, citing
>>the 2010 IARU 144 contest where a lot of stations lost points, all the 
>>UBN's
>>were available online, but the errors were clearly at the other end. The
>>host adjudicating society did not intervene. I asked whether this would
>>apply to our contests and was assured every effort would be made to find 
>>the
>>errant party.
>>
>>Bob G8HGN
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>
>>To: "Rob Harrison" <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>; "UK Contesting"
>><uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:46 PM
>>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>  
>

More information about the UK-Contest mailing list