CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
From: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Reply-to: k1ttt@arrl.net
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:20:07 +0000
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Of course the next logical step is to require real time score posting during
the contest, that way you could monitor the operation to be sure m/s
stations only have one signal on the band at a time, in addition to making
sure s/o's observe off times and all sorts of other things!


David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 23:16
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> 
> OK.  Let me see if I understand this.
> 
> Mark, buried down there in the reply, you state:
> "Therefore, it should be safe to assume the final standings should be
> pretty
> accurately reflected in the perliminary listings."
> 
> Right there is the logical fallacy.  It is not safe to assume anything.
> 
> Your argument claims that it is an unfair surprise to see a high score not
> posted on the 3830 reflector.  You state this is "highly suspicious."  But
> why?
> 
> Because someone has failed your expectations by not posting to a voluntary
> and unofficial source?
> 
> Because you have assumed, that dangerous word, that all top contesters
> must
> post to it, and that it becomes a de facto mandate to do so?
> 
> And you assert that it is better that everyone be forced to post?
> Otherwise
> they automatically open themselves up to accusations of cheating?  (Which
> is
> what category changes and log massaging implies)
> 
> Your automatic distrust saddens me.  Frankly, as a long time contester
> (albeit not now and probably never a big gun), your lack of faith in your
> fellow contesters seems unreasonable at the very least.
> 
> What has caused you to automatically distrust me (and others)?  Because we
> sometimes neglect to (or choose not to, for whatever reason) post to a
> voluntary system?
> 
> How does creating and spreading distrust benefit contesters and constest
> sponsors as a whole?
> -------------
> Now, if you can convince a contest sponsor to post on a web site the
> preliminary submitted scores, and that this is clearly spelled out in the
> rules ahead of time, I have no problem.  You know this up front, you know
> this before you send in your log.  As Mike N3LI has pointed out
> previously,
> there is at least one contest (the Pa QSO Party) that does just this.
> This
> may even give some participants in rare(r) counties and sections incentive
> to post -- if they see someone else with a lower score submitting, and
> realize they can beat it, they just might.  Keep in mind these important
> distinctions:  It is clearly stated in the rules that this will happen; No
> surprises.  And it was done by the contest sponsor on their own web site,
> not making unwarranted use of a 3rd party voluntary system.
> 
> The model to accomplish this is right there in front of you.
> 
> But rather than use this example (one of many, but I won't belabor the
> point), you keep hammering away that we should be forced to use a
> voluntary
> system.
> 
> Forced to use a voluntary system.
> 
> That's not just a perversion of English.  That's the fallacy in your
> argument.
> 
> The problem is not the 3830 Reflector, or it's voluntary use by contest
> participants.  The problem is that the contest sponsors have not yet taken
> advantage of existing technology to automatically post to web site a
> preliminary score based on the unchecked submitted log.
> 
> That's right.  Once the Cabrillo or ADIF file is submitted to the contest
> robot, it should be childs play to process the log, compute a preliminary
> score, and create an entry in a database for display on the web site.
> 
> Will this handle paper logs?  No.  Neither does 3830.  So it's not
> perfect.
> But it's a start.
> 
> So, why don't we quit carping about misuse of a voluntary system, and
> convince the contest sponsors that there's a better way?
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Mark Beckwith
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:31 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> 
> 
> > Posting the preliminary scores is a service to our participants. They
> > see their entry, and they see we have some idea of what their score
> > might be.
> 
> I think it's reasonable to say they also notice where they placed in
> respect
> to everyone else near them.  I know I do.  Call me competitive.  It's also
> reasonable to wonder why the order changes between the preliminary and
> final
> listings.  This conversation is all about that.
> 
> > But there is a reason they are called preliminary. Scores get changed.
> > And anyone who relies on the preliminary score as what their final
> > score is might very well be disappointed.
> 
> In the best case, the only reason to be disapppointed would be to be
> disappointed in oneself.  The only reason your score should fall is that
> either your copying or your logging were sufficiently erroneous to cause
> your score to slip down past some other operators who copied/logged more
> accurately than you did.
> 
> That's a perfect world.
> 
> In the real world, it is possible to slip down through no fault of one's
> copying or logging accuracy, but the stated goal of the log checkers, who
> are the first to say the process is not perfect, is that the goal is to
> have
> a system sufficiently good enough so that this does not happen.  I
> personally have yet to hear of a contender who has slipped a position
> between "claimed" and "final" that can be attributed to the removal of
> legitimate, accurately copied contacts which should not have been removed.
> Some people complain about having good QSOs removed, but did it change the
> order of the box?  I don't think it does.
> 
> Therefore, it should be safe to assume the final standings should be
> pretty
> accurately reflected in the perliminary listings.
> 
> Therefore, it should be safe to assume the preliminary listings should be
> able to be counted on as a pretty good idea of how you're going to finish.
> If you move up in the standings, you get an extra pat on the back for
> being
> more accurate than the guy above you was, and the guy who slipped knows he
> has some work to do in the accuracy/logging department.
> 
> The introduction of a new call to the box in the finals is rightly highly
> suspicious and it's better for everyone when that does not happen.  Did he
> change categories?  Did he massage his log?  Did the sponsor accept his
> log
> after the deadline?
> 
> That's not a witch hunt.  That's due dilligence.  It's also easily avoided
> which is good for everyone.  Which is what this is about.
> 
> Mark, N5OT
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>