Hi Kelly,
I agree with what you said, except I can envision a set of circumstances
where the log checker wouldn't be able to tell who was the one making the
error.
Let's say VE4XT is calling CQ Contest, and I send "K0HR" instead of K0SR.
You heard and reply to K0HR with an exchange. I make no attempt to correct
my call and send you an exchange back. We both log the QSO. My log says
K0SR worked VE4XT at some specific time, and your log says you worked K0HR
at the same time. Obviously there was an error there and somebody is likely
to be penalized for it.
In the above example you shouldn't be penalized since you copied exactly
what was sent to you. I should certainly be the one penalized because I
actually made two mistakes: sending my call wrong in the first place, and
then making no attempt to correct it if it came back "wrong".
I'm not sure what the log checkers would do in this case, take the Q from
both logs?
73 Steve K0SR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca>
To: "Steve Root" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Operator error
> Hi Steve,
>
> If you read the rules, particularly the ARRL rules, BOTH parties have
> responsibility for getting the information across. Failure to get the
right
> information across is a failure for both.
>
> A QSO only counts when it's right, and the rules offer no provision for
> "unless it's not my fault."
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Root" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>; "Richard Ferch" <ve3iay@rac.ca>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 6:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Operator error
>
>
> > Here's another example:
> >
> > I call CQ and get an answer. The caller sends his call wrong, and I
call
> > what he sent. If he doesn't correct it, who gets dinged? I think I do,
> > even though I didn't make the mistake.
> >
> > That's one of the reasons I stopped reading UBN reports.
> >
> > 73 Steve K0SR
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Ferch" <ve3iay@rac.ca>
> > To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Operator error
> >
> >
> > > The case under discussion is not at all the same as miscopying IL for
> IN,
> > > for which no-one is arguing that the log checking should not be
strict.
> > >
> > > The point here is that the station on the other end copied correctly
> what
> > > was actually sent. The problem is that what was sent was not what was
> > > logged. The error was made by the sending station, and yet according
to
> > > your logic the receiving station should be penalized.
> > >
> > > How can this happen? Very easy. You are running and I am S&Ping. I
call
> > > you, you send me your exchange, I send my exchange back and log the
QSO
> (a
> > > single keystroke does both with some software; or, it could be that I
am
> > > just over-eager and press Enter to log the QSO a bit too soon - my
> > mistake,
> > > not yours). My software increments the serial number displayed on the
> > screen.
> > >
> > > My exchange was hit by QRM, QRN or QSB so you ask me for a repeat. I
> look
> > > at the number displayed on my screen and send you a repeat serial
> number,
> > > but it's the wrong one. That's entirely my mistake. You copy correctly
> > what
> > > I sent, log it, and send your QRZ? message for the next QSO. Someone
> else
> > > with a stronger signal calls you, and even if I realize what happened
> > > (there is no guarantee of this) and try to correct my mistake by
calling
> > > you again, it is too late.
> > >
> > > Now if I recognize my mistake (which is certainly not always the
case),
> I
> > > may be able to fix my log to record the QSO with the re-sent serial
> number
> > > in the Cabrillo file (indeed, this is an example where post-contest
> > > manipulation of the log may be the ethically correct thing for me to
> do!),
> > > but I won't be penalized if I don't.
> > >
> > > Maybe that turns my honest mistake (sending the wrong number by
accident
> > > and unknowingly) into a crime (knowingly misrepresenting what I sent
in
> my
> > > log), but either way there is nothing you can do about it. Indeed, you
> > > don't have the slightest inkling that it has happened. Nor is there
any
> > > indication the log checkers can use to determine that I did not send
> what
> > I
> > > logged.
> > >
> > > There is absolutely nothing you have done that warrants a penalty, but
> if
> > > our two logs disagree and the log checking is strict, you are the one
> that
> > > will be penalized for miscopying what my log says I sent. If the log
> > > checking is not "dumbed down", there will be a miscarriage of justice
> and
> > > you will be the unsuspecting victim.
> > >
> > > 73,
> > > Rich VE3IAY
> > >
> > > >Dave,
> > > >
> > > >I can't imagine this being true. Either the exchange is right or it's
> > wrong.
> > > >
> > > >Following that logic if I work another station and he copies me as
K9GY
> > > >(sorry, Eric) he'd get credit for it because it's only off by one
> letter?
> > > >
> > > >....and copies my QTH as IL instead of IN. That's only off by "one".
> > > >
> > > >I hope the League hasn't dumbed down log checking to this extent
> > > >
> > > >Sounds like log checking by the firm of Clinton & Kerry.
> > > >
> > > >Hmm, maybe we could change the contest name from Sweepstakes to
> MIStakes.
> > > >CQ MS, CQ MS.....
> > > >
> > > >What fun....
> > > >
> > > >K9GX
> > > >
> > > >Elizabeth, IN
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
|