[NLRS] Contest behaviors and ethics...

Sun Oct 23 22:07:16 EDT 2005

>From information theory the conclusion that there is no level of confirmation
that assures that the message has been exchanged poprerly and the identity of both parties.

Do you you confirm the confirmations?  If that fails then you assume that the message was 
not transfered.  If you say yes to that then do you confirm the confirms?   You can see that
that could lead to an endless chaining of confirmation.  And we run the risk of band conditions changing
and making the chain of confirmation impossible.

My feeling is that you do a one level of confirmatiom.  Mistakes will be made and sometimes there will be penalties.  
But the better staion/operators will score better most of the time.

Clare
 de K0NY

On Sunday 23 October 2005 12:53 pm, John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK wrote:
> Cris and NLRSers,
>
> Just to be clear...I wasn't trying to say or imply that station 1 SHOULD
> get credit for that contact even though station 1 may have LEGITIMATELY
> thought that he (and for PC, I should add 'or she') did indeed WORK station
> 2 (even though that was not the case). Station 1 should NOT get contact
> credit and a penalty of removal of an additional QSO (or three for a log
> submitted on paper) IS appropriate. Now, if station 2 does not submit a
> log...there is no way that the "contest adjudicating authority" can know
> that both station 1 and station 3 are claiming credit for the "same" QSO.
> In that case, station 1 has gotten lucky.
>
> Now, whether or not Station 1 should have assumed that the contact with
> Station 2 was complete and even logged it is a separate issue...station 1
> may very well have transmitted to station 2 something on the order of "...
> and you confirm that you are working <my/station1 call sign>" and station 2
> responds with roger, roger, roger EVEN THOUGH the roger, roger roger was
> actually confirming something with station 3, how far do we expect station
> 1 to continue to try and confirm or what confidence level do we expect
> station 1 to try and reach?
>
> Do "we" really expect every transmission within a contest QSO/exchange to
> begin and end with transmission of BOTH of each station's calls?
>
> At what level of confidence does/should station 1 ("we") decide whether or
> not to enter that contact in the ("our") log?
>
> Personally, I also often ask for repeats and make sure that I actually hear
> the complete exchange including both calls and the grid square on the
> particular band even though I may already know the information for the
> other station.
>
> I've also had situations where the contact was really tough on a particular
> band and I go back to a liaison frequency and tell the station to repeat an
> item of the exchange multiple times on the other band...e.g. I've only
> heard one of the callsigns but can't pull the grid square or other callsign
> out (even though I KNOW what it is)...is *that* 'cheating'? I DO make sure
> that I hear ALL the elements of the exchange (including the other station's
> confirmation that they heard what *I* transmitted to them) on the other
> band, and I ALSO make sure that the other station indicates that THEY heard
> what I transmitted ON the other band (though I don't make them repeat what
> they heard to me). Again, how far does one need to go?
>
> This subsequent stuff is part of the individual contester's ethics and
> there are LOTS of facets to that. How much time/reflector bandwidth do "we"
> want to spend on discussing/debating/specifying standards for THOSE
> aspects? (if any).
>
> 73, JK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Cox, N0UK" <chrisc at BritishCarAndDriver.Com>
> To: "John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK" <hamk9jk at ameritech.net>
> Cc: <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 11:29
> Subject: Re: [NLRS] Re: Log Checking Reports for VHF Contests
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> NLRS at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs

-- 
Mr. Clare Jarvis
Jarvis Computer Software
PO Box 1264
Winona MN 55987-7264

(507) 454 2575

Reply to: jarvis at jarviscomputer.com