Short and sweet...
1. Since I was on the CQWWCC when the 3:1 penalty was first initiated, I can
say with
confidence that it has nothing to do with the ratio of how many logs could be
cross-checked.
The penalty was designed to encourage accuracy. Later, somebody noticed that
the ratio
seemed to align with how much cross-checking there was. Today, a huge number
of the
line entries can be cross-checked, so even the 2:1 would not be appropriate if
that were
the logic. Again, the history is that the penalty was designed to encourage
accuracy. No
guessing about that. You're getting it from the horses mouth.
Did you know that at one time, errors over 3% were dinged at a 10:1 ratio? The
purpose
was encourage skill and to discourage, well, you know what.
2. I can say with certainty that I would not have WON my category of entry
several times
if the penalty were 2:1 instead of 3:1. Yes, this makes a BIG difference for
close scores.
Some guys view the penalty in terms of how it impacts their own score; "less is
better," right?
But what if your competition is less accurate than you are? Think about it.
I am not passing judgement on the new penalty one way or the other. Just
stating some facts.
de Doug KR2Q
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|