[UK-CONTEST] UBN errors

[Ian White GM3SEK]

Dave wrote:
>
>> You only need to type one letter in N1MM callsign field for it to display
>> the correct outgoing serial number. Without that single letter the
>> programme
>> does not know that you are not trying to complete your previous QSO.  73
>> Clive GM3POI
>>

>Exactly the same is true of Win-Test.
>
>I am sure that most of the time, when serials differ by one it is down 
>to user error but it is not clear whether the error is with the sender 
>or the receiver. For that reason, serials out by one should not be 
>penalised. That is how I used to do it when I checked the 80m CC 
>contests. If the automated checking now used by the Committee is 
>penalising serials out by just one, I think that is going too far.
>
>Dave G4BUO

Please, no...  Imagine what would happen if word got around that all 
"out by one" receiving errors would be excused! Those kinds of broken 
exchange errors should be penalised, along with busted callsigns and the 
missing /P.

But only if we can be sure that we're all being penalised FAIRLY [1]

It really is time this was sorted:

1. Analysis of existing log archives to identify the *sending* stations 
involved in UBNs - not just "off by one", but errors of all kinds. If 
any individuals stand out, then it was probably their fault and they 
need to be told.

Nothing further can be done about past contests, but those stations 
should be flagged to warn the adjudicators of future contests.

2. The same analysis routinely applied when adjudicating current 
contests. Receiving stations should not be penalised for any UBNs 
involving those stations. (The question of penalties for the sending 
stations should be left to the judgement of the CC, until we're a lot 
more certain about what's actually happening.)

3. Is there a correlation between those persistent offenders and the 
software they are using (as declared in the Cabrillo file)?



[1] Please, let's hear no more excuses that "Everything is OK because 
the unfairness is spread around".  That line has long passed its 
smell-by date.


-- 

73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek