[UK-CONTEST] Contest UBN's

[Stewart Bryant]

Don,

On 18/04/2012 16:40, Don Field wrote:
> Peter et al
>
> First off, UBN is CQ terminology - Unique (for which you would only be
> penalised if it was unique because clearly broken), Busted (speaks for
> itself) and Not in Log (also speaks for itself).

Note BTW that CQ is an organization concerned with mega HF contests
and focuses on high Q numbers, rather than a high rate of accurate
transmission of useful information.

>
> For almost all contests worldwide the assumption, unless there is strong
> evidence to the contrary (e.g. a consistent pattern), is that the receiving
> end is in error. To penalise both ends means that 50% of penalties are,
> arguably, unwarranted. The current situation means that only a very small
> proportion are unwarranted.

I disagree, here, but I am more interested in VHF contesting where
you do need to send real information and not (Call - with hint from
last years log - 599 (every time) - zone (auto completed from call).
Compare sparseness of the information exchange on CQWW with the relative
care that happens on VHF NFD and you see two very different animals.

If both sides got penalties, the onus would be on the leading station
who had more at stake in the exchange to make sure the contact
completed correctly.


>
> The system can never be 100%, but I would argue that it doesn't have to be.
> What matters is to achieve the right order of finishing. If a disputed QSO
> wouldn't affect that, it is surely immaterial. I don't consider it
> appropriate to ask already hard-pressed volunteers to trawl through hours
> of recordings (with the possible exception of ARRL, RSGB manages more
> contests than any other body I can think of). The possible exception is
> where a significant change of finishing order would happen (e.g. trophy
> recipients). It is rare for a finish to be so close. In Moscow (last WRTC)
> it really was a "level playing field" and the top two were within 3 QSOs/1
> mult of each other in 3000 QSOs. In "normal" contesting that is rare.
>


> Most contesters end up with an error rate of 3-5% but expect the Contest
> Cttee to have an error rate of 0%. I don't consider that reasonable :-)
> (find me a football referee with an error rate of 0%!)
>

In general rugby referees and cricket umpires do better than football
referees in this regard, but they have embraced modern technology to
ensure the fairness of the contests they supervise.

Perhaps if the logs were made public consistent issues in adjudication
would be open to scrutiny.

Stewart/G3YSX