Uniques are innocent until proven guilty. Read that again.
Tree, who writes the software and performs the log checking, made it clear
MANY times in his post that uniques are only tossed if they are proven to be
busted. No offence intended to anybody, but do consider the source on these
matters.
The only way they can be proven to be busted is if at the same time you
claim to have worked KV4Z, K4VZ claims to have worked you or KV4Z has no
record of a Q with you or other corroborating evidence that proves you got
the call wrong.
If I got on Sunday afternoon and worked one person, that would be a unique,
but would stand. If you busted my call to VE4XY, even that would stand
unless I sent in a checklog for one QSO (like, how likely is that?). If I
worked 100, 99 of whom got my call correctly, the QSOs would stand for all
100, even the guy who busted my call UNLESS I sent in a checklog, and even
though the preponderance of circumstantial evidence suggests that station
busted my call. But circumstantial evidence is not enough.
Now, let's say I don't work anybody, and 100 other stations don't work
anybody. If our 101 callsigns show up in someone's log, that's suspicious.
Possibly suspicious enough that the log checkers would attempt to contact
us. If we say we were not operating in that contest and did not work
anybody, those 101 Qs would likely be tossed. (Should there be a DQ?
Probably.)
But there needs to be proof to toss uniques, even in the above example.
Innocent until proven guilty. Clear?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hiers" <aa4ga@contesting.com>
To: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Pile Up in the Top Ten Box
> On 9 Nov 2002 at 4:24, Tom Osborne wrote:
>
> > Once a few years back, I needed VE6 for a CW sweep. Couldn't
> > fine one anywhere. Just a few minutes before the end of the
> > contest I heard some VE6's rag-chewing on 80 so I broke in and
> > asked if someone could give me an exchange on CW. One guy did
> > and I made my sweep. Now, if I did that, it would probably get
> > tossed.
>
> That's obscene!
>
> Is the ARRL actually tossing uniques because they're uniques now? I
> haven't been keeping up with the state of the super-duper-log-
> checking. I remember CQ reports them, but I don't think they remove
> them just because they're unique.
>
> Please tell me the ARRL isn't doing that now...if they are, it just
> gives me one more reason to be upset with the League.
>
> Sigh,
>
> Lee
>
> --
> Lee Hiers, AA4GA
> Cornelia, Georgia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|