[UK-CONTEST] Reverse UBN

[Ray James]

Hi Steve and thanks for personal views.

Lack of trust does come into it when recordings by CC members can be used in appeal of a UBN but not when made by competitors.
I guess this new proposal has been generated thanks to technology advances with SDR availability and the potential it gives to observe a contest but that is of greater relevance to HF rather than 23cm or 13cm so the HF tail is wagging the VHF+ dog.
It was never my normal practise to record a contest but occasional UBN's for wrong information received when I was positive I hadn't miss-heard led me to start recording to see for myself and prove the UBN's wrong on each and every occasion. Every point lost counts when positions are close and a years effort can go downhill fast when you're penalised when someone sends you one thing and submits something different. They keep their points and I lose all mine and that's not fair. I believe competitors should have a right to appeal and to use their recorded proof to support it. 
As far as VHF General Rule 4m, I take the Douglas Bader "Rules are for" on that one because I don't count a contact as complete until confirmation is positively received at the time. I've got to hear it. 
Also, unlike HF contesting, unless local or very loud, contest exchange information is never sent once but 2, 3 or even more times on 23cm and above so you can be damn sure what someones sending you is what they're going to submit and when it isn't is when the problem occurs.
Common sense rules in these cases and should a UBN appear it would only be appealed in important position changing circumstances.

Steve, regarding your views on the loss of points. 
Currently, if GXXXX sends me 559008 (and I have it recorded clearly 2 or 3 times) but he submits 539008 in his contest entry, I get a UBN and lose the points whereas GXXXX loses nothing. 
It could be forgetfullness what they sent, a typo, whatever, the wrong person is getting penalised.
I believe all competitors should have the right to appeal and prove by recorded means they were not in the wrong, even if it means scrapping rule 4m which is impossible to enforce anyway.
Again I say, only for important position changing circumstances as the adjudicators (thanks all!) have lives to lead as well.

73 Ray GM4CXM



--- On Wed, 19/9/12, Steve Knowles <g3ufy at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> 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?