Mike I would appreciate a little clarification here...since you are
'admittedly' a black and white kind of person.
1. Are you saying that "I" and PJ4X knowingly violated the rules every year!!??
2. If the answer to '1' above is yes then I will emphatically request a
retraction...PJ4X has not and does not 'cheat'. When operating a high 'energy'
M/2 (and by energy I mean alpha personalities) mistakes occur. Someone jumps on
a mult too quickly or the mult station operator forgets to leave 2 band changes
for near the end of the hour so that we don't go over.
This is pure bullshit. If you want to drive people out of the contesting
world...keep it up.
I'll be happy to share ANY year's PJ4X logs with anyone that wants to see them.
I'm not worried about people learning our strategy or finding issues. The log
is what it is. If the CQ contest committee is happy with it that's all I'm
concerned about. I'm happy to let our PJ4X log stand against anyone else
willing to put up...or shut up.
This is NOT a black and white issue...
I am expecting an apology...but I know I won't get it.
M/2 is the most demanding of the Multi-operator configurations.
M/S...easy...have a run radio and a second radio (or 5 more like certain
stations do) that work just multipliers...
M/M...easy...1 or 2 radios per band and you run and use 2S1's or some other
device to ensure that you do not have two signals on a band at the same time.
M/2...2 "RUN" radios and I say that intentionally...as most people who have
operated a large M/2 either stateside or DX, you will have two stations that
will sit on the 'open' bands for as long as they produce rate. A third (or
fifth if you are using two per band) radio can then be configured with an
additional lockout to allow "it" to work mult's on a third band to take
advantage of those 8 band changes per hour per position. With all of that
'happening' people DO make mistakes. The MULT radio operator has to remember to
ALT-Y to take over which ever radio has the most band changes left in the hour
to ensure that we are not using up all the band changes...but people
FORGET...especially during the evening hours. There is no BENEFIT to a M/2 to
scrub the log with x-QSO's or even deleting (because that IS obvious)...X-QSO's
allow the M/2 to leave the Q in so the other guy doesn't get dinged...and it is
NOT COUNTED in the M/2's log...so again, how is it that this is a benefit?? You
say it allows me to get away with breaking the rules...if anything it's a
BENEFIT to the other guy because he gets to keep the mult but I lose the Q.
Keep in mind unless there are 2 stations on from PJ4 (which is happening more
now)...EVERY station that works us is working US for their only PJ4
multiplier...
You think we like to have 9 band changes in an hour?? You think that is
Cheating??? It's exactly why the X-QSO was setup in the Cabrillo file (or one
of the reason at least) in my opinion. The station that made the mistake loses
credit for the Q but the station on the other end does not.
How the HELL is that cheating?? Show me the benefit, because I've been missing
it for about 20 years...
________________________________
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:17:40 AM
To: Martin Durham; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
I believe this example clearly shows the problem. Every year this station has
violated the rules. He knew how to fix the log so there would be no or little
penalty. The ability to fix these transgressions is not published in the
rules, so how many other stations, took a chance, or reclassified to MM or
didn't bother to send in a log.
I appreciate Martin's honesty but at some point are the operators not
responsible for following the rules? If not, why have any rules and why list
top 10's? Can you explain to me why it is so difficult for your team to adhere
to the written rules and not follow the 10 minute rule? I honestly do not
understand and when it happens over and over it sure makes me wonder.
Software glitches aside it is still the responsibility of the operators to
follow the rules.
While a clear path to cheating or exploiting may not be clear right now, I can
assure you that because of the cultural differences we share, people are
working on ways to use this (new to me) knowledge to their advantage. am just
saying that now that this can of worms is open, are we ready for any unintended
consequences.
How does an X-Qso benefit you? You just stated it. You broke the rules many
times yet nothing happened. That seems like a big benefit to me.
W0MU
On 4/13/2017 4:04 AM, Martin Durham wrote:
What??? Benefit Multi's (and it's only Multi-2's really that are hit with this)
how?? If you are inside the 10min band change window your choices are:
1. Delete the Q's...cleans your log but hurts the other guy
2. Use the 'little x's' as you say. This clearly shows you cannot count these
calls in your log but rather than 'scrub' the log you are admitting you were
'early' on the band change and don't want the other guys to be penalized. X the
Q so the other guy doesn't get penalized.
3. Do neither and take the multi-Q penalty for each band change or 10min rule
violation.
So, I find it hard to see a way this benefits the multi-op in any of these
scenarios...2 and 3 the Multi-op is being honest and up front about the mistake
(a 1 stroke penalty in golf if you will)...1 hurt's the other guy and still
only benefits the Multi from a penalty. X-Qso's make a lot of sense.
Virtually every PJ4X log I have submitted over the years for WWSSB has had at
least one band-change violation (M/2)...in one year we had 160Q's docked
because of an issue with the logging software itself. We worked with the
contest adjudicators and still lost Q's, but not to that level.
So...please...explain how a M/2 benefits from the X-QSO?
W1MD
________________________________
From: CQ-Contest
<cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com><mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>
on behalf of W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com><mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:29:00 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW LCR's and log scrubbing
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><mailto: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><mailto: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<mailto:k5zd@charter.net>
>>>> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto: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<mailto:john@kk9a.com>;
>>>> cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto: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<mailto:john@kk9a.com>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:45 AM
>>>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto: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
|