This is exhausting stuff Gerald, I can’t imagine
what it would be like to have one person taking all
the focus all the time.
I totally agree Jon. However, I feel that having one point of contact can have real benefits. In my opinion, what the MT needs is -
Someone that ensures that the issue raised has been properly and fully debated within the MT and, where required, the appropriate action has been taken.
Someone that can express the outcome of those discussions, either to the membership at large or to the individual on a personal basis in such a manner as to present the facts in a straightforward, but sensitive manner.
The advantages are -
The individual members of the MT would be freed to make comments on a personal basis without them being “branded” as representing the MT.
The person dealing with PR would hopefully be able to build up a rapport with and gain respect from the membership.
The membership would feel that the issues that they raise have been properly considered and dealt with in a fair manner.
So, the question: Will the MT discuss this issue? Please tell me yes, even if the outcome is “we do not see the need for change”.
I see the case for uniformity and sensitivity. I am concerned not with just what is said, but the way it is said. We all need to feel valued and that our concerns are being addressed in the proper manner. I wholeheartedly agree with Jon here - de-personalising the response will only reinforce the feeling of isolation and mistrust. However, I see 6 different response styles as a potential problem and unpalatable as it might seem, I think someone needs to be appointed to provide an interface between the MT and the membership.
It’s so dificult in the written word to explain one’s feeling because the written word carries no intonation like the spoken word does, this leads to things being taken the wrong way.
A go between would be a good way of presenting cases in both directions, let’s hope MT discuss the possibility and reply on it.
I gather from the thread that the issue here is that someone has removed various log entries from the database to try and show that they reached a certain goal in a given time.
However even if he has deleted the best part of his chaser log, he can’t delete the entries from the logs of the activators that he worked prior to the start of the period of time. So a full and careful examination of the activator logs will show more than can be gathered from just the chaser logs.
It’s so dificult in the written word to explain one’s feeling because
the written word carries no intonation like the spoken word does, this
leads to things being taken the wrong way.
As has been the case recently. Perhaps it would be appropriate to use the spoken word in some instances, but of course care has to be taken as once said, never forgotten!
Could you please clarify a point for me. I have been a SOTA participant for about six months as a chaser and greatly enjoy it, but I am getting very confused regarding certain aspects of the database and hope you can clarify these for me. In your post you quote " There will also be cases where despite a belief that a valid QSO took place at the time it is clear your callsign was just not logged by the activator for whatever reason. Such Pseudo-QSOs can be deleted." My chaser log however states at the bottom that confirmation is not required to claim points. I have about a dozen unconfirmed contacts, three of which are with the same activator and coincidentally for the same summit but widely separated in date. I know that several other chasers have unconfirmed contacts for these activations. I can’t seem to get access to the Activators’ logs or the Summit history at the moment and would be grateful for a bit of guidance, but I still can’t see why, if on three separate occasions the activator has not logged my contacts I should consider these ‘Pseudo QSOs’ and delete them. Your help would be much appreciated
In reply to G0ELJ:
Dave the asterisk is, as you rightly say, not required. If you are sure you worked an activator then that should be enough. If , however, you are unsure then it is best to check the activators log as and when you can.
Be careful about the asterik this only proves that the activator submitted a log which contains information that matches yours. There are some well known activators who do not submit logs for some time because of other committments. Do not worry unduely about whether there is an asterix or not - if you are convinced that you recieved a valid two way qso, report as min both ways, then that is all that counts. The term confirmation not required to claim points refers, I believe, to QSL cards.
Here’s what it says at the bottom of everyone’s individual chaser log on the SOTA Database:
“1. If an entry is marked with a ‘*’ in the Points column , this indicates that an exact match has been found in the activators log. Think of it as an automatic QSL confirmation, but remeber that there are many reasons why an exactly matching contact will not be found in the database. You do not need confirmation to claim points for the QSO.”
Hmmm. Looks like I’ve got some checking to do. I wouldn’t bother normally, for the reasons given in this statement, but I notice that my CW contact with DF2GN on 26 Oct is not asterisked, whereas the contact with Klaus yesterday is. That would suggest a mistake on my part - will investigate.
I agree with Roger and Glyn, the asterisk is totally irrelevant. There can be several reasons for not receiving an asterisk, some activators
may not enter their log for some time, especially if they are on tour. Some only enter the first 4 contacts, some don’t enter a log at all. Then there is the scenario where an input error is made, such as inserting a letter O instead of the number 0. There is also the possibility that someone may have entered a log, then removed part of it.
The bottom line is, it’s not important Dave, so just carry on as you are and enjoy your SOTA.