Quack Says
One way that the sending station can correct the error for both if this
should happen would be for him to enter the call of the station just worked
a second time but sometimes the offending station doesn't even reaolize that
he has made an error. OF CORSE the dreaded DUPE shows up in the log and
there are some who just can't stand to have one of those to show up.
Rex K7QQ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Ferch" <ve3iay@rac.ca>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 14:58
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Operator error
> The case under discussion is not at all the same as miscopying IL for IN,
> for which no-one is arguing that the log checking should not be strict.
>
> The point here is that the station on the other end copied correctly what
> was actually sent. The problem is that what was sent was not what was
> logged. The error was made by the sending station, and yet according to
> your logic the receiving station should be penalized.
>
> How can this happen? Very easy. You are running and I am S&Ping. I call
> you, you send me your exchange, I send my exchange back and log the QSO (a
> single keystroke does both with some software; or, it could be that I am
> just over-eager and press Enter to log the QSO a bit too soon - my
mistake,
> not yours). My software increments the serial number displayed on the
screen.
>
> My exchange was hit by QRM, QRN or QSB so you ask me for a repeat. I look
> at the number displayed on my screen and send you a repeat serial number,
> but it's the wrong one. That's entirely my mistake. You copy correctly
what
> I sent, log it, and send your QRZ? message for the next QSO. Someone else
> with a stronger signal calls you, and even if I realize what happened
> (there is no guarantee of this) and try to correct my mistake by calling
> you again, it is too late.
>
> Now if I recognize my mistake (which is certainly not always the case), I
> may be able to fix my log to record the QSO with the re-sent serial number
> in the Cabrillo file (indeed, this is an example where post-contest
> manipulation of the log may be the ethically correct thing for me to do!),
> but I won't be penalized if I don't.
>
> Maybe that turns my honest mistake (sending the wrong number by accident
> and unknowingly) into a crime (knowingly misrepresenting what I sent in my
> log), but either way there is nothing you can do about it. Indeed, you
> don't have the slightest inkling that it has happened. Nor is there any
> indication the log checkers can use to determine that I did not send what
I
> logged.
>
> There is absolutely nothing you have done that warrants a penalty, but if
> our two logs disagree and the log checking is strict, you are the one that
> will be penalized for miscopying what my log says I sent. If the log
> checking is not "dumbed down", there will be a miscarriage of justice and
> you will be the unsuspecting victim.
>
> 73,
> Rich VE3IAY
>
> >Dave,
> >
> >I can't imagine this being true. Either the exchange is right or it's
wrong.
> >
> >Following that logic if I work another station and he copies me as K9GY
> >(sorry, Eric) he'd get credit for it because it's only off by one letter?
> >
> >....and copies my QTH as IL instead of IN. That's only off by "one".
> >
> >I hope the League hasn't dumbed down log checking to this extent
> >
> >Sounds like log checking by the firm of Clinton & Kerry.
> >
> >Hmm, maybe we could change the contest name from Sweepstakes to MIStakes.
> >CQ MS, CQ MS.....
> >
> >What fun....
> >
> >K9GX
> >
> >Elizabeth, IN
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|