CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Log Checking, Penalities, etc.

Subject: [CQ-Contest] Log Checking, Penalities, etc.
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com (bogus@does.not.exist.com)
Date: Sat May 8 01:02:56 1999
I've followed the recent dialog concerning contest log checking and penalty 
accessment with considerable interest.  I figured it was time to join the 
party. Though my comments aren't particularly unique, I firmly believe they 
reflect the position of at least some of the active contest community.

I've watched the evolution of computer log checking for over ten years now, 
starting with some of the early presentations at Visalia back in the late 
80s. I think it has been an extremely positive contribution to the sport of 
radio contesting.  I applaud the committment and efforts of those who have 
made it a a reality.

I am quite content to have any and all my contest logs subjected to any 
reasonable process of computer based checking.  If I break a call, miss an 
exchange or make an error in entry, I believe I should have the contact 
removed from my log along with any accompanying unique multiplier it may
have 
generated.

HOWEVER, I can not accept the concept of a 3 (or whatever) QSO penality for 
ANY reason.  I find the implication that I have somehow been "caught" 
attempting to "cheat", or that I did not "do my best" to get the exchange 
correct, to be demeaning and inappropriate. If it's a bad Q, kick-it-out... 
but don't pass judgement on me when you have no knowledge of the origin of 
the inaccuracy.  

I do not consider myself to be among the "top tier" of contesters, no do I 
ever expect to be.  But I know many who are, and I know from operating with 
them that they "march to a different drummer'". There are real differences
in 
skill level, memory retention, reaction time, whatever.  These differences 
lead to a higher and more consistent level of contest performance, i.e. 
bigger and more accurate logs !

It would be foolish of me to assume that by merely "trying harder" I can 
aspire to "run with the big dogs". No matter how much I might wish it 
otherwise, I'm destined to make "my share" of mistakes in contests.  The 
busted calls. broken exchanges, keyboard errors, etc. will be there.  On 
occasions the gods of QRM, QRN, QSB, etc. will favor me, and the error rate 
will improve a bit, but it will be a transistory thing.

Yes, more than a few calls have gone into my log that I knew were 
questionable.  Only the very gifted can run Europe in a major DX contest 
(especially from a juicy Mult location) without that experience.  But
getting 
fills with several dozen EUs incessently calling on the frequency is a skill

few have mastered.  But by and large my Qs are logged as I "heard them"... 
(and yes, that's not always the way they were sent, but sometimes even that 
is in question.)  In domestic contests I do make a sincere effort to "get it

right"... asking for fills WHENEVER I have reason to suspect something's 
amiss.

Why do I go into all this? Simply because I reject the concept that an 
"added" QSO penalty scheme will in some way encourage me (and many other 
contesters) to "try harder" and to "do better".  I may aspire to run the 4 
minute mile, but it's simply not in the hand I was dealt.  I suggest that 
such "punitive" measures have no place in contesting.

Nuff said... Dennis says I've gotta go do the NCJ column before I can go to 
the CAC meeting in Dayton.

C ya there,

Joe, W5ASP

  



--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] Log Checking, Penalities, etc., bogus@does.not.exist.com <=