This is actually a very good point, and expecting 100% accuracy during log
checking is not always possible.
I read the book "Contact Sport" that covers the 2014 WRTC. Clearly, we are
dealing with top-level competitors, and a LOT of effort went into log
checking. It was amazing to see how much effort went into the process, and
the end result.
Yes - this was only a subset of all the logs for the contest, and clearly,
the stakes were very high for both participants and organizers. Expecting
this level of effort to be put into every log in every contest is simply
not possible. I think this is where this statement came from - ensuring
the correct finishing order for the participants, rather than the exact
score.
Tom - VE3CX
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Helmut Mueller <helmut@photo42.de> wrote:
> Hi Ken.
>
> Quote: "Lots more work for the sponsor. But if everyone is serious about
> accuracy it will need to be done."
>
> This is a great demand, but who is going to do it? You want to ask
> "somone" who spends 200+ hours on logchecking to simply double his private
> spare time to 400+ hours just to prove what? You have 5 less qsos being
> deducted? Have you ever tried to find volunteers spending hundreds of hours
> on something painful like this? Getting the blame at the end because they
> deducted to much QSOs?
>
> I remember a quote (was it Randy?): "We are here to find the correct order
> of participants, not the correct numbers". (something close to this)
>
> CQWW SSB has 8200+ Logs. Let every participant pay 25$ to send his log,
> than we have the time and money to spend for more accuracy.
>
> 73
>
> Helmut
>
> df7zs.de
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
> Ken K6MR
> Gesendet: Friday, 15 April, 2016 6:05 AM
> An: ac0w@charter.net; 'cq-contest@contesting.com' <
> cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
>
> They have already moved to confirming both sides: recordings. Now that
> recordings are mandatory for the big guns, if you are serious about your
> score you don’t have any choice but to record.
>
> What needs to happen (if the contest sponsors are serious about accuracy)
> is to send LCRs prior to the results being posted and allow stations to
> cross check the LCR with the recordings. If the receiving station can prove
> that the data copied was indeed what was sent then no penalty to the
> receiver. Then the penalty can be assessed against the sender.
>
> Lots more work for the sponsor. But if everyone is serious about accuracy
> it will need to be done.
>
> Ken K6MR
>
> From: ac0w@charter.net<mailto:ac0w@charter.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 19:15
> To: 'cq-contest@contesting.com'<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
>
> Ed,
> Your very last line points to a key critical element "a successful two way
> QSO". A successful two way QSO requires both a sending station to
> accurately send and record that information along with a receiving station
> to accurately receive and record that information. There are plenty of
> times when then sending station either inaccurately sends information or
> inaccurately records the information sent while the receiving station
> accurately records that information. Because the information in the two
> logs do not match and the receiving station is assumed guilty and penalized
> despite the sending station being the guilty party.
> To make matters worse for the innocent receiving station that is
> penalized, the guilty sending station gets to receive credit for the QSO.
> This is where I have the issue of a penality, the station the caused the
> error is not always the one that gets the penalty. Now I don't have the
> solution on how to properly penalize the station making the error, to me it
> is just morally wrong to assume people are guilty and penalize them for
> what sometimes is an error by someone else.
> Now maybe some other old timers will remember this (guess I fit that
> group) some contests use to have in their rules the reason a QSO was worth
> 2 points. 1 point was for accurately sending the information and
> 1 point was for accurately receiving the information. I'm suspect this was
> dropped at some point in time when they realized there is no way to
> determine if the information was accurately sent or not.
> I'm fine with a penalty as long as the proper station is penalized.
> Until then we need to return to what our legal system is based on,
> "innocent until proven guilty".
> BillAC0W
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:36:14 -0700
> From: "Ed Muns"
> To: "'CQ-Contest'"
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Additional Penalty
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Not every contest imposes penalties on incorrectly logged QSOs, beyond
> losing credit for the QSO. Contests that do impose penalties are simply
> requiring higher accuracy, in balance with speed and quantity. It's just a
> rule.
>
> Radiosport is unique compared to basketball, baseball, bowling and most
> all sports because competitors must work together as a team to complete a
> successful two-way QSO with each other.
>
> Ed W0YK
> _________________________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|