If X-Qso's were widely understood and accepted by all, you might have a
point. I think the delete key has been a key player for too long. All
contests do not accept this logging practice and what percent of the
participants even know about this? Less than 10 percent, less than 1?
I guess log checking routines now need to look at NIL contacts with a
station and see if there are other contacts around that period of time
that also showed a qso but those qso are not in the other stations logs.
Yes Lexi Thompson was penalized after the fact and was again flagged for
signing what was unknown to her at the time a scorecard that was wrong
and further penalized, which many feel was over the top. The golfer
faces a penalty for breaking the rules. Why is a radio sport/contest
competitor not penalized? What is an appropriate penalty for breaking
the rules? Contact outside the band edges, poor clock management, etc.
I agree that the stations worked in that time period should not be the
damaged parties as they are now.
Where is the line drawn on honest mistakes and calculated risks knowing
that we have a group of over worked and under paid volunteers?
I am not a proponent of looking the other way and giving people the
benefit of the doubt. Too many times this benefit is being abused by
people gaming the game. Gaming the game is part of the sport for too
many in this game. The rules are quite clear. Following the rules is
part of the game, lack of sleep and other distractions are excuses for
rule breaking. Did the golfer place the ball in a different spot for
avoid a bad lie? Only the golfer knows but the penalty is the same if
you did it by mistake or on purpose.
What will it be next contest? If people would stop this nonsense then
maybe we could get back to talking and promoting our sport instead of
having to deal something new every major contest. It is getting old.
W0MU
On 4/12/2017 9:51 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
Hi Mike,
Who’s to say it wouldn’t be obvious if someone was gaming the system?
A station that changes bands continuously throughout a 10-minute window would
clearly be breaking the rules, X-QSO or not.
Remember, X-QSO doesn’t scrub incriminating evidence from logs, rather, it leaves that
evidence intact. It just means you don’t get credit for X-QSOs. The log checkers would
still see you were flouting the rules.
Nobody is saying you can use X-QSO as a cover for flagrant violations. Why
assume otherwise?
We already have a catchall of “unsportsmanlike conduct” that can be used to reclassify logs as checklogs,
or DQ the station. It would seem pretty clear to me that if a station works someone nine minutes, 36 seconds into a
10-minute window and then X-QSOs it and doesn’t work another station till 10 minutes is up, it was just an
“Ooops.” The X-QSO means there was zero benefit to the station making that mistake, and there’s zero
benefit to making a zero-benefit QSO.
Another example is SS: you can only work 24 hours, and your six hours off have
to be clearly marked. And they have to actually be OFF times. You could not
work all 30 hours, X-QSO the worst six hours and expect to be cleared of
violating that rule. The evidence would be staring the log checkers in the face!
A golfer who files an incorrect scorecard is not DQd. A week or two ago, Lexi Thompson
did just that and went on to lose by only one point: a viewer emailed the LPGA
alleging she didn’t, in round 3, place her ball on the exact same spot on the
green from which she picked it up. The next day, she was informed she was getting a
two-stroke penalty for moving the ball and a two-stroke penalty for filing an
incorrect scorecard the day before. So your assertion golfers are DQd in this instance
is not supported by recent history.
However, the LPGA would have the option of DQing someone for repeated unclaimed
violations.
I don’t think contesting — where a win is worth nothing but bragging rights —
needs to be stricter than a sport watched by millions with millions of dollars on the line for
winners. Do you?
X-QSO is a way to be honest with the log checkers. It’s a way of saying ‘Hey, I worked this guy, I shouldn’t have, and
I’m not claiming it.’ It’s the equivalent of a golfer, on hole 18, saying, “You know, on reflection, I should take this
number of penalty strokes because I’m pretty sure now that I touched the sand in that bunker on 8.” It’s not hiding anything.
You can’t “scrub” logs with X-QSO, but X-QSO is a more honest fix than what was available
previously, which was using the ‘delete’ key.
73, kelly, ve4xt
On Apr 12, 2017, at 4:29 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
So with this logic, it would benefit any Multis to break the 10 minute rules
all the time and them scrub the log with little X's and remove the qso's that
benefit them the least? Is that what happened in 2016? Will we ever know the
rest of the story. Will these Multi's be made public and asked to provide some
explanations? If the Multi in question had used little X's at least other
participants would not have been damaged while the multi get off scott free?
A golfer that attempts to hide a mistake will be DQed. They also have very
stiff penalties in the form of strokes that are added to their score where
winners and losers are decided by 1 stroke many many times.
Car racing you exceed the pit speed limit, you lose a lap. Good luck winning.
It can happen but not often
If you don't run the right course on a running race, you get a DQ. Step over
the line tossing a javelin and the toss does not count I can go on for a long
time about many other sporting competitions where you are penalized for
breaking the rules. Not in contesting. Sorry about that 12 or 15 minutes of
extra time, self spots, excessive power and on and on and most just want to
look the other way.
Should multi's that can't count to 10 be penalized 2 to 10 mults per
occurrence? You break the 10 minute rule by choice. It is part of the game
to get it right, just like copying callsigns. Using a little X to make things
right does not sit well with me. Maybe they should lose 10 minutes of qso's on
both sides of the mistake?
Brain cramps? Mistakes or calculated choices? That is hard to judge.
How about people follow the rules instead of giving people more ways to game
the game? The rules are pretty freaking simple. The only reason people keep
pushing the rules is that very little is ever done. We can't embarrass our
buddies, that club needs the points to win, etc.
I have no empathy for those that can't managed to do the right things and have
a boat load of excuses why they broke said rules.
Are we to the point where we just give everyone the same certificate to make
everyone feel wonderful in radio contesting?
The unassisted guy the uses packet and then claims Unassisted and scrubs a few
packet contacts to make it look better with some cute little X's?
Intentionally deleting contacts to avoid a 10 minute issue lacks any integrity
and honesty. I find it hard to believe that people would support it.
Self spotting? Who cares. People build skimmers and put them at friends
houses or at their own to get spotted on CW and RTTY. What is the difference?
We had a huge discussion about this and I think most people seemed to agree
that limited self spotting would actually benefit the contest.
To allow people to break the rules and then just allow them off the hook with
an X in a log is a total joke and insults the rest of us that can read and
follow the rules.
W0MU
On 4/12/2017 10:54 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
(This is directed at the thread, not to counter anything written by K3ZJ)
The X-QSO tool is a sound practice of correcting for brain cramps. I do not believe
anyone would want a big multi-op station’s entire weekend ruined by
inadvertently screwing up the 10-minute rule or misjudging when to get back on after a
mandated break period. X-QSO allows for that, as you are not claiming credit for QSOs
made in violation.
Golf is one of the most-scrutinized ‘honor’ sports there is, to the point viewers on
TV can even spot violations and notify organizers by email. However, even if such violations prove
true, the golfer’s entire tournament is not necessarily lost: a penalty is applied for
failing to claim a stroke and a further penalty is claimed for filing a false scorecard.
However, if the golfer identifies the violation and records the appropriate penalty
before submitting the scorecard, all is good. This can happen at ANY TIME before
submitting the card — at the time of the violation or after holing out the
18th. Either way, the score still counts, even if failing to record a penalty carries
very punitive consequences.
Is the X-QSO not the same as saying, “Hey, I moved that ball before striking it, so
I’m taking the penalty stroke.”?
The scenario raised features an unassisted op working a bunch of packet spots and then marking each as
X-QSO. This is interesting, but I don’t see the point, since X-QSO means the QSOs don't count at
all: you don’t get the QSO points nor do you get the multipliers. It’s in the log so the
people you worked don’t pay for your mistake, but you gain no benefit from the QSOs.
73, kelly, ve4xt
On Apr 12, 2017, at 6:13 AM, David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com> wrote:
To be clear in context and for *most* contests, for mono band (single band)
entries, there is no need to use the "X-QSO" function for QSOs on a
different band. Assuming that your single band category is correctly
identified in the cabrillo file, all QSOs on a different band (1) will be
disregarded for purposes of your submission but (2) counted for the
correspondent station. The "X-QSO" function is to remove QSOs from your
score within your category that otherwise would be included.
73, Dave K3ZJ
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net>
wrote:
This will depend on the contest. For CQWW, the other station should
receive
credit for the QSO.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Voelpel [mailto:dj7ww@t-online.de]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:38 AM
To: k5zd@charter.net
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
Hi Randy,
What happens to the other station?
I had two QSOs in CQWW 2016 marked with X on a different band while doing
mono band.
Both qsos are listed under "Stations Receiving Not In Log From DJ7WW".
Their public logs show them both.
73
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Randy Thompson K5ZD
Sent: Mittwoch, 12. April 2017 12:19
To: john@kk9a.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
The Cabrillo specification does allow for this. See
https://wwrof.org/cabrillo/cabrillo-specification-v3/
X-QSO: qso-data
Any QSO marked with this tag will be ignored in your log. Use to mark
QSOs made that you do not want to count toward your score.
This tag was created to give people a way to mark a QSO as not counting
and not have to remove it from their log.
Note: Not every contest may accept this tag, but it is recognized by the
major contests.
Randy, K5ZD
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
Of john@kk9a.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:45 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
Is there a way to have some unclaimed QSOs in a cabrillo file?
John KK9A
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
From: "Dick Green WC1M"
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:31:33 -0400
I was advised to do that by K3EST for the 8P8P CQ WW SSB M/S log when
we discovered that a bug in our logging software caused us to make a
significant number of QSOs outside the 10-minute window. This was back
in the days when log scrubbing wasn't as strongly discouraged as it is
now.
I don't know what the CQ WW CC would advise today.
73, Dick WC1M
_______________________________________________
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
|