[UK-CONTEST] Reverse UBN

[Steve Knowles]

Hello, Ray.

You wrote:

<However, the "consultation" on the general rules stated recordings would 
not be accepted in defence of a UBN unless recorded by a CC member and as 
that struck me as "lack of trust", I opted not to bother submitting anything 
at all. Why bother if CC believe their peers will go to the effort of 
editing a recorded file to appeal a UBN!>

Sadly I now have to remind you that, even though I am a member of RSGBCC, 
these are my personal and private opinions.

Lack of trust does not come into it!  Quite apart from the ethical issue of 
being able repeatedly to review an exchange which is supposed to be made on 
air and copied at the time of making the QSO (VHF General Rule 4m refers) 
the main problem is one of accuracy.  I don't think ANYONE believes that 
falsification of recordings is a worthwhile effort, even though it is 
theoretically possible, nor that anyone would bother to attempt it! 
However, the MOST that you can record is everything that is available for 
YOU to hear.  Your assumption, naturally, is that this is ALL there is to 
hear, but not so  ... there may be other relevant material which is excluded 
from you by virtue of QRM, changes of propagation or (most significantly) by 
the operation of your own transmitter doubling with the other station - the 
former being most likely to affect VHF and up, the latter most likely to 
apply to HF/LF.
A recent investigation of operators' recordings made during the 80mCCs 
showed that 40% of a particular station's claims that they had been wrongly 
penalised were invalid because they had been too slick and had transmitted 
on top of the station with which they thought he had completed, while a 
correction was being sent to them.

You have expressed opposition to the concept of both parties losing points 
for a defective exchange.  For the welfare of Contesting, which is the 
better way to concentrate the mind?  "Just log it anyway and give it a run 
'cos we can't lose" or "spend some time to get it right or we lose all the 
points and waste the effort!"   My opinion is that the guilty should never 
profit, whatever the pain to the innocent.  Quid videtur?

73

Steve
G3UFY


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray James" <gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>; "Dave G3RXP" <g3rxp at btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Reverse UBN


>
>
> --- On Wed, 19/9/12, Dave G3RXP <g3rxp at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Its very difficult to know if a station has sent an error or the received 
>> station has received it incorrectly but using the UBN reports of ALL 
>> stations and doing a sort on errors you can have a good idea if one 
>> particular station is consistantly sending errors for whatever reason.
>
> It isn't difficult to spot an error if you record a contest to confirm on 
> the receive side that a UBN can be wrong.
> However, the "consultation" on the general rules stated recordings would 
> not be accepted in defence of a UBN unless recorded by a CC member and as 
> that struck me as "lack of trust", I opted not to bother submitting 
> anything at all. Why bother if CC believe their peers will go to the 
> effort of editing a recorded file to appeal a UBN!
> If I've made a mistake, I'll hold my hand up and move on, if I haven't 
> then I object to being penalised and losing precious points or a 
> multiplier yet the one making the mistake loses nothing and keeps the 
> points gained by our contact.
> I'm against both losing the points, just the mistake maker.
>
> I don't record every contest entry, just 23cm and SHF UKAC's.
> The reason I started was the same as Andy GM4JR suffered with folk sending 
> one thing over the air and stating something different in their entry.
> Unlike Andy, I found such errors quite random.
> A simple mistake made probably 'cos in the excitement of the long range 
> microwave contact, perhaps the one chance of a multiplier, a report is 
> sent blindly and the mind has gone blank when trying to recall what was 
> actually sent when completing the log. Folk have admitted to me that has 
> happened to them when typing up or writing the log and wondering what the 
> bloody hell did they just give, and guessed wrong.
> It's not fair that that the non-mistaker maker is the one who loses the 
> points and possible multiplier and is miss-trusted in defending themselves 
> with a recording proving what was received was what was actually sent.
> Me, I'm for fair play.
>
> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest