> I think this rush to argue the three Q penalty is too much only serves to
> prove that yes, 3 QSO penalties get the attention of the
> contenders...conclusion: don't change it - its working!
>
> 73,
>
> Jim, K4OJ
I agree. There was a fairly cogent line of reasoning presented by N6AA at
the Visalia contest forum about why the number is three, not one or two.
("And the number shall be three...") Summarizing - one or two fail to
discourage sloppy operating (sloperating) because the penalty can be
overcome by rate. Three is the smallest number for which the penalty can
not be made up by simply going faster. (That may not apply to N5TJ and
N6KT - but as OJ observes - they seem to be doing just fine, thanks...)
73, Ward N0AX
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|