In a message dated 5/15/2005 11:29:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ve4xt@mts.net
writes:
>>What's wrong with the idea of a penalty?
Yuri is twisting logic himself when he can't see that a penalty in a contest
isn't dissimilar to a financial penalty for speeding. By his logic, a
speeding ticket would not hurt, you'd simply have to sit where the cop
stopped you until your average speed drops to the posted limit and proceed
on your way, a drunk driver would only have to sober up and a bank robber
would only have to repay the stolen amount. There would be no jail, no fine
and no licence suspension.<<
Thank you for another example of "ham" logic :-)
Let me try another example, maybe it will help.
You are doing driver's test. You answered one question wrong. Examiner will
take out another 3 good answers out "to teach you a lesson". Right?! Etc. etc.
Reasoning about possible other errors that log checking cannot detect to make
the 3 QSO penalty right makes as much sense as above example.
>>Under what system of jurisprudence, ham or non-ham, would that make sense?<<
You mix weird analogy into the "jurisprudence".
>>Also, obviously nobody on this list has anywhere near the antennas and
receivers and neurological filters that Yuri does if he can't understand the
idea of guessing. I guess he's NEVER had to sit and listen while EVERY time
the call is sent some QSB or QRM obliterates part of the call.<<
Thank you for compliment to my 160m Inv Vee and roof vertical....
Looks like it has not hit me that I could do some guessing. Like I got part
of W7AB? call, now I will guess: was it A or which of the rest of 25
characters? To be safe I will put all combinations in the log W7ABA through
W7ABZ and
will hit the good one somewhere. Is that how it works? I must have overlooked
this "trick" when call gets obliterated. Gimme a break! If you guessed it
wrong,
you will lose it, period.
>>I guess he's never S&Ped to have someone send "k3du, tu de...?" and not be
able to break in again to correct him.<<
No, I try to correct it, good operator will take it. Those that insist not
taking it, THEY will lose points, not me. (They should be penalized 6 QSOs :-)
>>I guess none of us is as perfect as Yuri. All the more reason to continue
with the penalty, I'd say.<<
It is not a question of my perfection, the point was that weird things happen
during the contest (pirates, lost logs/QSOs due to computer malfunction or
operator error, etc.) of no fault of operator in question. 3 QSO penalty
unjustly aggravates the reduction of scores.
If the majority feels this is right, then I apologize for stirring the pot. I
will not bother looking at my UBN reports (again), what's the point? "We are
all treated the same"
I would then advocate increasing the penalty to 6 QSOs, to "really teach"
those guessing, sloppy, whatever, operators valuable lesson. Maybe we could see
some negative scores from really bad ones :-)
Unconfirmed rumor is that there is a bunch of "guerilla" operators ganging up
for next WW ready to work those insisting on 3 QSO penalty and not putting
them in their logs, therefore causing massive deductions of scores.
Judging by some responses so far, looks like I am barking up a wrong tree, so
I apologize for roughing up the calm waters of the reflector.
So what about one point for own country QSO in CQ WW? Another bad idea?
Maybe time to keep up with times? Or fuggetaboutit, it's only a hobby/sport!
73 and have a great Dayton!
Yuri, K3BU.us
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|