But there is a major problem when the contest committee tell us that
they had to waive the NIL penalty because otherwise a large number of
stations would end up with a negative score.
Furthermore the committee states the following:
"In the legacy modes, the "fault" for a NIL is most always on the
side that logged the QSO. For
the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is, but in any case,
the amount of NILs is
abnormally high. Going forward, FT contesting needs to better define
how QSO partners can reliably
communicate whether a QSO is complete and should be logged. The
responsibility resides both
with contest participants and FT contest software developers."
Yes Vince, a contest is a contest and the goal is the same. But when
the operator is unable to decide whether a QSO should be logged or
not, to me it that's a clear indication that automation has gone too
far. Especially when the committee says that the amount of NILs is
abnormally high.
The operator is "in the back seat" and certainly NOT up front
driving. Now that's where there's clearly room for criticizing the concept.
73
Peter SM2CEW
At 15:20 2020-01-12, DXer wrote:
As for all the other FT-X 'non-user expert' criticism, a contest is
a contest. The goal is the same. Personal sub-interests are just
that, personal.
73 de Vince, VA3VF
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|