Hi Mike,
Since you are focusing on the 10-minute rule, and seem intent on considering
violations of that rule a sin punishable by DQ, would it surprise you to learn
that CQ does not?
E. Log Checking: All logs are checked using custom software and human judgment.
Duplicate contacts are removed with no additional penalty.
Contacts with an incorrectly received exchange are removed with no additional
penalty.
Call sign errors (bust) or call signs not in the other log (NIL) are removed
and receive a penalty of two times the QSO point value for that contact.
Contacts that do not meet the band change rules for multi-operator entries are
removed with no additional penalty.
So if CQ sees fit to not punish these violations beyond a consequence identical
to using X-QSO, why is it such a crime to use X-QSO? If the organizer sees fit
to not make it a DQable offence, why should the rest of us?
Source: https://www.cqww.com/rules.htm
73, kelly, ve4xt
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 13, 2017, at 10:17, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>
> 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> on behalf of W0MU
>> Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:29:00 PM
>> *To:* 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> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|