Not to disgree with everything Yuri writes, but often, multiple-choice
university exams WILL include penalties for wrong answers to disincentivize
guessing. (IOW: better to leave it blank than guess wrongly.)
Which is exactly what these rules are intended to encourage. Get it right or
don't get it at all.
Which for those in the middle of the pack is of little consequence, but as a
metric to distinguish the very best, perfectly reasonable. I think a guy who
makes the most clean Qs is a better operator than one who makes lots of Qs
but gets lots of them wrong.
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 5/24/13 9:01 AM, "Yuri Blanarovich" <k3bu@optimum.net> wrote:
> Glad to see incremental improvement in contest rules, thanks Randy!
>
> Just strikes me, ham radio "logic" vs. rest of the life logic.
> Where in life do we have 3 times "penalty" for mistake, error,
> innacuracy?
> You answer question on test wrong, do you get "penalized" by taking 3
> more
> questions out (into negative score) to "teach" you?
> You get speeding ticket, police gives you 3 times miles over the limit
> to "teach" you? Etc.
>
> As Don writes, it is the relic from paper log days, that some "ham
> lawyer" figured
> would be good thing to teach those slopy, cheating hams lesson.
> Records, actually there are some old records that are inflated due to
> old (non)checking
> and are hard to beat with "penalizing" system of new checking.
> Had that happen to me.
> Problem with QSO with error? Just don't count it. Simple, logical,
> normal!
>
> Thanks for the small step for the hamkind!
>
> Now, why do we still penalize large radio countries with ZERO points per
> QSO?
> Another relic from the distant past. With today's technology, SDRs, no
> need for that,
> make it more fair and give everybody 2 or 3 points per QSO.
>
> As another example of ham radio "logic", back to MY skimmer (gadget)
> being
> classified as SOMEONE else (person) and treated as ASSISTANT.
> Time to treat things as they are, not what they pretend to do. Where is
> the borderline?
>
> I am not getting into "extending mike and headphones" with remotering
> and making business out of it and QST/ARRL promoting it.
>
> Good luck in WPX!
>
> 73 Yuri, K3BU.us
> www.MVmanor.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Don Field wrote:
>
>> I suspect the answer is actually quite mundane. When the 3:1 penalty
>> was
>> first introduced, log checking was still on paper and only a small
>> proportion of errors were actually detected (in any case, with paper
>> logs,
>> many participants didn't even send in logs as it was such a chore, so
>> those
>> QSOs couldn't be checked). So 3:1 was a way of making up for the
>> limited
>> checking that could be done.
>>
>> Nowadays, with computer log checking, typically 70% or more of QSOs
>> get
>> checked, so fewer than half of any errors go undetected. On that basis
>> a
>> 2:1 penalty seems entirely appropriate?
>>
>> Don G3XTT
>>
>> On 24 May 2013 04:15, Barry <w2up@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I was there. Randy said a number of guys were winding up with
>>> negative
>>> scores. That certainly doesn't encourage long term participation by
>>> newbies.
>>>
>>> Barry W2UP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|