> I'm old enough (CK 64) to remember the 1 point SS qso, although I can't
> remember actually having had any such contacts. I suspect that few people
> claimed them, but rather put down whatever they thought they had copied
> knowing that mistakes would never be caught by a logchecker with a desk
> overflowing with paper logs.
I remember logging some of them and my check is "67".
> With today's computerized checking, dupes and busted calls can be routinely
> and easily detected. While high unique callsign rates may flag a log for
> closer inspection, I see no reason for additional penalty qsos to be
> subtracted for dupes or bad calls.
I think there needs to be some kind of penalty for any busted information.
This provides incentive to either get it right, or not put it in log.
Without some kind of penalty, you have no reason not to guess, because
the worst thing that will happen is that you just lose the QSO.
I am confident that this rule will be changed for next year, so there
is some kind of penalty for any busted information. Perhaps the 3
QSO penalty will be reduced for busted callsigns since the detection
methods are so much more efficient.
I also think dupe penalties for electronic logs make no sense.
73 Tree N6TR
tree@contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|