[UK-CONTEST] Penalties

[alannottage at aol.com]

I have noted on at least one occasion a newer operator missing the fact that the called station has *their* callsign incorrect and proceeds to send his report/serial without correction.  Is it me or is listening under-rated nowadays?

Al G0XBV



-----Original Message-----
From: G4FNL <graham at g4fnl.co.uk>
To: uk-contest <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:55
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Penalties


Quin
I think that the idea that new (or casual) competitors being put off
ntering a contest because of a penalty is a bit patronising. If a penalty
ystem for wrongly logged exchange info was introduced (for RSGB contests)
hen it would surely make people more careful. After all, the hobby is,
part from other things, about self-improvement - whether it's from a better
ntenna, or bigger amplifier, or in this case - in operating skill. 
he new web system for displaying results is good for showing details of
hether operators are in an improved placement on previous contests is to be
raised. Therefore, one can see if you're improving (or not) from these -
ut it may mask the sending errors - and I think that it should be made
pparent to an operators if s/he has made such an error in sending or
eceiving (self improvement).
hat is really needed is to somehow get competitor numbers up. The example
f the Norwich Club is one that surely shows the rest of us that there are
olks who are keen to get on the air, and with a bit of cagouling from the
ikes of Roger G3LDI and others, can be persuaded to have a go in the 80m
vents. 
ersonally, I hope to be back for NFD next year (this year was the first
ime in 30 years apart from the foot and mouth outbreak that we haven't
ntered. 
73 Graham G4FNL
-----Original Message-----
rom: UK-Contest [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
UENTIN COLLIER
ent: 30 August 2012 16:46
o: UK-Contest
ubject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] WAS HF NFD RESULTS PUBLISHED
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
omething different into the words he used. 

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

3,


uin G3WRR

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