[UK-CONTEST] Reverse UBN

[GM4JR]

Ethical! I wonder if it is ethical to send an exchange and then log
something completely different on SEVEN successive contests & then submit
your log?

I'd never have dreamed of recording contests (nor anything else for that
matter) until my situation arose. I bought a handheld digital recorder to
check my ears / sanity...low and behold it was NOT my ears, nor my sanity,
not even my dodgy handwriting, or dodgy typing! Clear as a bell (no need to
repeat as these were not scratchy nor difficult contacts) the exchange was
EXACTLY per my paper and PC logs (Yes I'd even started DUAL logging owing to
my concerns in case I was at fault)!

I had someone review the NINE contests / UBNs etc telling them SEVEN times
in NINE I'd got a UBN for the same station. They came back to advise it was
not 7 in 9....it was actually 7 in 7 i.e. 100% because I'd failed to notice
that of the sample NINE UKACs I hadn't actually worked the station on 2
occasions. Hence it was WORSE than I'd thought / suspected.

Anyway, the answer was simple. Rather than cause a rumpus, given I always
worked this station search and pounce, I just don't work him - problem
solved.

Andy
GM4JR




-----Original Message-----
From: UK-Contest [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ray
James
Sent: 20 September 2012 12:18
To: uk-contest at contesting.com; Steve Knowles
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Reverse UBN

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?

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