[UK-CONTEST] REAL REPORTS ?

[Rob Harrison]

Hi Clive,

I wasn't really apportioning blame, just let each party know in a "disputed" 
QSO that there had been an error somewhere. The adjudicator has to decide 
one way or another, but then only the adjudged guilty party knows (via UBN), 
not the possible other culprit. I agree in most circumstances both should 
not be penalised.

This needs addressing or regular miscreants will continue to log 
incorrectly, but not know.

73 Bob G8HGN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
To: "'Contest Reflector UK'" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] REAL REPORTS ?


> Bob , that kind of error is very common in the 80m CC contests. In
> particular those that log by PC, but send by hand and send the previous
> serial number rather than the next serial. Some actually also send there
> callsigns wrong.
> Another problem are those that are logging by PC  send for example
> 559 but let the PC log the default 599.
> All these examples lead to mistakes in the wrong person loosing points. 
> Both
> loosing is equally wrong.
> 73 Clive GM3POI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob Harrison
> Sent: 29 June 2012 11:09
> To: Contest Reflector UK
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] REAL REPORTS ?
>
> Roger,
>
> Would it not be better to send UBN's to both parties in an errored QSO,
> whether either or both was the culprit and lost points? If you want to get
> stations to improve surely both need to know they were involved in an 
> error.
>
> I'd like to know if I'd lost points for someone else due to my error.
>
> The reason I say this is I was involved in one where I lost out and it was
> due to the other party ( we had an  email exchange afterwards, and the 
> other
>
> party admitted to logging something he didn't send, due to a logging 
> program
>
> function, all quite amicable).
>
> 73 Bob G8HGN
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Roger Western" <g3sxw at btinternet.com>
> To: "Contest Reflector UK" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] REAL REPORTS ?
>
>
>> Ian,
>> CQWW certainly checks this by producing a 'reverse log' of Busted calls,
>> showing the frequency. For example:
>> GM3HEK (1), GM3SE (3), GM3SEX (1), GM4SEK (2)
>> Any number over a pre-set limit is automatically flagged up for
>> investigation. If you were routinely sending 'GM3SE K' for example and 28
>> stations logged you as GM3SE then they would not be penalised. Only in
>> rather extreme and repeated cases would adjudicators take action against
>> the
>> sending station: usually a friendly note is enough to prevent the problem
>> recurring in future contests. UBN reports, after all, are designed to 
>> help
>> entrants to improve, not to slap wrists.
>> 73 de Roger/G3SXW.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Ian White GM3SEK
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:12 AM
>> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] REAL REPORTS ?
>>
>> Steve Knowles wrote:
>>>the adjudication software (affectionately known as ADJ) ... and that
>>>most definitely does look!"  Amongst a whole lot of other things, ADJ
>>>flags any mismatches in RS(T) for the adjudicator to investigate.
>>>
>>>ADJ just points out the problems.  There is a general presumption that
>>>what the sending station logs is correct, but this is not a cast iron
>>>rule and it's always the adjudicator who makes the decision whether to
>>>penalise or not, bringing his/her knowledge and experience into play.
>>>For (a very simple) example - if you've sent 59 to every contact in
>>>every event for the last 3 years and you suddenly show a 55, copied as
>>>a 59, the adjudicator might well not be convinced and decide not to
>>>penalise the receiver.  On the other hand, if you were 9J2BO or G3JKY
>>>(who ALWAYS send real reports) ......
>>>
>>>As for signing /P - no problem ... awkward is good stuff, provided you
>>>do it for every QSO in the event.  However, if you aren't consistent
>>>(even if you don't send in a log) ADJ will know, alert the adjudicator
>>>and stations not copying your call correctly will not be penalised.
>>
>> It is good that ADJ checks for consistency on the part of sending
>> stations.  Callsigns and location information are easy because they
>> should never change... but what about variable data like serial numbers
>> or ROPOCO exchanges?
>>
>> Does ADJ ever check the list of busted QSOs for an entire contest, to
>> look for unusually high involvement on the part of certain SENDING
>> stations?
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>> http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 9.0.0.888, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20040)
> http://www.pctools.com/
> =======
>
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 9.0.0.888, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20040)
> http://www.pctools.com/
> =======
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest