CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW support etc

To: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW support etc
From: "Alexander Teimurazov" <at@at-communication.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:29:45 +0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
                 Dear Kelly,
 So often its happen whenever you  work station and everything is ok and
even you receive qsl and you find that you are not in his contest log
 Another problem is MS station when they are work you and then ask you to
qsy
 I have lot of examples when situation is like that and operator cant do lot
about that
 Sometime happen that someone work single band and you ask him qsy on
another band and he accept that and qsy several bands and not all contacts
is in the log
                       73                                 Al 4L5A/D4B

> Hi Al,
>
> Except that a Not-In-Log is as bad or worse than callsign copying
mistakes.
>
> It means you think you worked someone when you didn't.
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Teimurazov" <at@at-communication.com>
> To: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
> Cc: <CQ-CONTEST@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW support etc
>
>
> >
> >        Dear Kelly,
> >  Im not talking about remove penalties
> >  If I copy call sign wrong then propably its ok to penalize (on the same
> > time penalti level is so high ) but I think for not in the log people
dont
> > have to be penalized
> >            73                       Al 4L5A/D4B
> >
> > > >  We all humans and can make mistakes
> > >
> > > Hello Al,
> > >
> > > While I agree with the sentiment that we all make mistakes, those
> > operators
> > > who make fewer mistakes are better operators and should be rewarded.
> > > Otherwise, you take accuracy out of the equation.
> > >
> > > What removing penalties would mean, then, is that no attention needs
to
> be
> > > paid to such things as getting callsigns correct or getting the
> > information
> > > correct, since taking extra steps to do that would lower overall rate.
> If
> > > the penalty was only to lose the bad QSO, then it would be in your
> > interests
> > > to blow out the doors on rate because you could more than make up for
> the
> > > lost Q by working two or more guys in the time it would take to wait
for
> a
> > > fill. Having the penalty gives you an incentive to get it right.
> > >
> > > If you're not in someone else's log at the time you say you worked
him,
> > you
> > > didn't work him, so you shouldn't get credit.
> > >
> > > Having accuracy as part of the equation is a good thing, since it can
to
> > an
> > > extent equalize stations: being big isn't necessarily enough. Being
big
> > AND
> > > good is still key.
> > >
> > > 73, kelly
> > > ve4xt
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>