[NLRS] Re: Log Checking Reports for VHF Contests

[Chris Cox, N0UK]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK wrote:
> And it's not always dishonesty...while I suspect there *are* cases of 
> dishonesty, there are also legitimate mistakes (and MORE of these than 
> dishonesty, I would hope) where station 1 thinks they were working station 2 
> yet station 2 was working station 3 and it just happened to coincide with 
> timing that the "R"s or "QSL"s or Rogers made station 1 think that station 2 
> was confirming with them, station 1, rather than station 3, who station 2 
> was really confirming with...maybe station 2 did not repeat the call of 
> station 3 later in the exchange and/or maybe station 1 was digging station 2 
> from right at the noise floor of his station so wasn't able to copy 
> everything perfectly. These and similar situations DO occur.

<soapbox>
You are correct, Jon, that the above events do occur but, in my opinion, 
as the contest rules require that we EXCHANGE complete sets of callsigns 
and the appropriate report, plus confirmation, that these partial contacts 
are exactly that - partial and incomplete.  Whether it be due to 
negligence, lack of skill/confidence, or an attempt to improve the qso 
rate by not giving the pair of callsigns, then I think the contact 
shouldn't be included in the final score.  I think sometimes people get a 
little frustrated at me when I keep asking for a repeat of some piece of 
the exchange, especially when I *know* what I should be hearing but, until 
I have actually heard that item during that contact, I will keep asking!
</soapbox>

I think I have seen this behaviour most often on the HF bands but I have 
noted it during the VHF and microwave contests too.

 -- 
73  Chris Cox, N0UK  email: chrisc at chris.org or Alice at BritishCarAndDriver.Com

 Home Page: http://WWW.BritishCarAndDriver.Com   http://www.pingjockey.net 

  Come and join us here in Minnesota, July 27th 2006, for the 40th annual 
   Central States VHF Society Conference, hosted once again by the NLRS.