[UK-CONTEST] WAS HF NFD RESULTS PUBLISHED

Thu Aug 30 11:46:06 EDT 2012

Thanks Graham - I wondered if that was the point Clive was getting at (thanks for the response by the way Clive) but had initially (mis)read something different into the words he used. 

For sure the CQ / ARRL approach focusses entrants' minds on not just best guessing callsigns and hoping for the best. But I fear there might be collateral damage in permanently putting off inexperienced contesters who genuinely do their best but are demoralised by huge loss of points. A totally personal view is that CQ/ARRL's highly laudable aim of focussing attention on logging accuracy might be better achieved by including in the contest exchange information (eg. a serial number or similar)  that cannot be obtained from inspection of the prefix or a lookup on qrz.com - but as I say that's just a personal opinion!

73,

Quin G3WRR

________________________________
From: G4FNL <graham at g4fnl.co.uk>
To: uk-contest at contesting.com 
Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2012, 16:32
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] WAS HF NFD RESULTS PUBLISHED

Quin

I think what is meant (and I'm sure Clive will respond) is that if you make
an error in callsign - you don't get a penalty as such, you just lose the
QSO. If there was a penalty, it would surely sharpen-up operating skills -
and people would be more careful about their logging. 
I would fully support a  penalty system whereby if the recipient made an
error - in whatever element of the exchange - then they should have a
penalty of two or three times the value of the QSO.
One area that I have personally been trying to improve in - and have to some
extent in the RSGB 80m CC events - is to improve my own accuracy. I would
take even more care over 'dodgy' QSOs if I knew that there was a penalty
that would be significant.

73 Graham G4FNL

-----Original Message-----
From: UK-Contest [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
QUENTIN COLLIER
Sent: 30 August 2012 15:35
To: 'UK-Contest at contesting. com'
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] WAS HF NFD RESULTS PUBLISHED

Clive, 

It would be helpful if you could exactly clarify what you mean by the
statement "no callsign errors in RSGB contests have any penalty for the
error". As stated, it simply isn't true - as you (and all the other NFD
entrants) will find when you receive your NFD UBNs in the near future!

73,

Quin G3WRR 

________________________________
From: Clive GM3POI <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
To: 'David' <g3yyd at btinternet.com>; "'UK-Contest at contesting. com'"
<UK-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2012, 15:10
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] WAS HF NFD RESULTS PUBLISHED

David
    Comparisons with ARRL field are not legitimate. The ARRL is and has
always been not a contest in the normal sense. Which of course is the reason
it has many bands, and is treated like a BBQ rather than an HF Contest. Not
so the case in Europe. You only had to listen this last NFD to see that EU
activity was very high, admittedly not so from the UK for a number of
already stated reasons. NFD only needs more active contesters to join in,
NOT to be changed from the now EU standard. 
    The types of questions that need to be asked are, if 200-300 stations
can be QRV in AFS or the CC contests why can't they get their act together
for NFD.  Is it the same old case of the Brits just can't be bothered, which
of course is more than likely. 
    Is it the case that the standard format for  RSGB contests produces home
grown contest entrants that can't hack it when  they join the big boys for
real contests. ? Again more than likely.
My last remark is centred on the fact than no callsign errors in RSGB
contests have any penalty for the error, therefore when a UK contester
entrant joins the real world, they are not up to it, in the main.
    Where are the RSGB CC online Videos of how to operate and be
competitive. etc.     These are the types of questions that should be asked
and answered before messing around further with rules that have served well
within EU for years. 
73 Clive GM3POI

-----Original Message-----
From: UK-Contest [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
David
Sent: 30 August 2012 13:40
To: UK-Contest at contesting. com
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] HF NFD RESULTS PUBLISHED

Ultimately the rules are judged by the participants or lack of them.

If the numbers are going down then draw the obvious conclusion.

I am a great believer in the adage 'Keep It Simple Stupid'.

By the way look at this set of field day rules:
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Field-Day/2012/2012-FD-Rules.pdf

Probably a little smaller than RSGB field day rule set - including the HF
and the VHF general rules. But notice the category and scoring system and
you see what ARRL are encouraging. RSGB NFD rules especially on HF are about
discouraging - they are too restrictive.

May be I am treading on some hallowed turf with my next comment: Stop
looking to the past glories look towards the future and make decisions about
the future not the so called golden past of 10 watts DC input with a peddle
generator, a TRF receiver with a bit of wire thrown over a tree.

73 David G3YYD

_______________________________________________
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest

=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 9.0.0.2308, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20530)
http://www.pctools.com/ =======

=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 9.0.0.2308, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20530)
http://www.pctools.com/ =======
_______________________________________________
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