Is it being said here that in the case where a station receives an exchange,
logs it as actually sent, that it be recommended he NOT get credit for the
QSO because the TRANSMITTING station screwed something up?
This is exactly the situation that the log checkers try to avoid.
As far as any weaking of the process, let's not forget that log checking has
done anything BUT weaken the process. I don't think there's a contester out
there who hasn't rethought the value of asking for repeats.
(This whole +/-1 rule is overblown here. Note that in most cases of missing
a digit by one, the +/- 1 rule will not help. Busting 753 to 853 will still
get you dinged. If someone is cavalier about what he logs, he will get
nailed.)
These attempts at making everything black-and-white are unrealistic. Log
checking cannot be all-knowing. It must not be too harsh or cause
unnecessary collateral damage or risk scaring away casual operating, nor can
it afford to be too weak and then judged ineffective. It cannot "know" what
was really sent, how much power an operator was using, or if plenty of other
mischief occurred. Log checking is a compromise.
The fact that it was even considered to allow +/-1 is a testament to the
understanding these log checking guys have about the whole thing. I'll bet
not one in twenty guys on this reflector ever thought of this scenario
(until now). And suddenly we are now all experts! ;-)
Mike N2MG
> I disagree. If you have contest programs that do not perform properly
> either because of them, or poor operator use, your contact should not
count
> (for receive or transmit).
>
> It is the responsibility of ALL to get it all right (including the
> checkers). Sloppy stuff and operation should not be accepted. I have
seen
> a lot of ops just keep going even when they know contact info is wrong.
> This should not be accepted when detected.
>
> It takes time and effort to get proper contacts. Those who take that time
> and effort to get it right should not be allowed to be beaten by those
that
> don't.
>
|