Thank you, Ward! Beautifully stated.
73, de Hans, K0HB/4ID
🌵Sent from Arizona 🌞
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can't manage yourself so you petition the organizers to change the
> > rules. Crazy!
> Well, let's just put up straw man arguments and knock them down, shall
> we? Did I petition the organizers? No. They changed the rules on
> their own in response to what they, as contest managers who deal with
> the real data, perceived as detrimental to the competition they desire
> to create. I happen to agree that a some kind of change is needed
> because of the effects of such behavior that is increasing with every
> contest.
> > Isn't contesting a competition? When I compete in the contest it is to
> > MAXIMIZE MY SCORE, not yours! What you might consider bad sportsman
> > ship is maximizing my score.
> What's to stop someone from posting bogus spots on your frequency then?
> It violates no FCC regulation or contest rule and certainly maximizes
> THEIR score relative to yours and that's supposedly all that counts. No
> ID? No problem! Be careful what you wish for.
> > I am not intentionally wasting your time
> > by not Identifying, I happen to have a huge pileup of people that know
> > who I am. What makes you so special that I need to change my operating
> > habits because you happened to find me?
> Really - and how do all of these people know the running station's
> call? Was it on the Internet or something? Are they just guessing?
> Are they dupes? The runner has no idea - they are just depending on
> general confusion and the caller's goodwill to gain a benefit they deny
> to the caller. By intentionally and willfully violating the underlying
> quid pro quo that both stations identify sufficiently to conduct their
> business effectively, the running station gains time at the expense of
> the caller's time, at minimum, and at a significant multiple if there
> are more than one station waiting for the running station to ID. The
> problem is obvious to anybody who's been running pileups for the past
> few years. If you want data, look at dupe rates from running stations
> and busted call rates for stations using spotting for starters.
> > Where do we want to take this?
> Don't make this out to be more than it is. Sports create and add new
> rules because it is agreed on that certain types of conduct confer an
> unwarranted advantage. Spitballs, holding, tripping, delay of game -
> the rules prohibiting these invented behaviors and many more were
> created to preserve the essential conduct of the game. They were a
> response to somebody starting whatever it was and enough people
> eventually misbehaving that it had to be reined in because it was
> damaging the competition. And that's exactly what we have here - more
> and more of this non-IDing behavior in response to ubiquitous broadband
> spotting.
> No rule must be perfectly enforceable - there are no such rules. What's
> needed is to establish a standard for conduct on the air, whether by
> guideline or rule, so that the natural desire to maximize one's score by
> any means possible is balanced by defining what is allowed. Speed
> limits don't eliminate speeding but they do set a public standard for
> behavior and that's what is needed here.
> If the not-IDing-as-pileup-management technique was not becoming
> excessive then we wouldn't need to have this conversation at all. Like
> most similar situations, the give and take of competition is quite
> tolerable until somebody decides they're special and stops cooperating.
> Then a few more folks see that they can get away with it, too, and
> pretty soon we have a problem - the usual "tragedy of the commons"
> situation in which a few spoil things for many. Of course, I'm assuming
> "the many" actually care about exchanging information primarily over the
> air. Given trends, that's possibly a questionable assumption.
> In the broader sense of where radiosport is going, networked
> distribution of information about signals on the air isn't going away by
> any means - in fact, it's expanding rapidly - so we're going to need
> some kind of limitation that constrains the primary channel of
> information to be over the air. Or, we can decide that the spotting
> technology is so ubiquitous that ID'ing isn't required at all except to
> satisfy whatever regulatory limits exist for the transmitting station.
> Your call.
> 73, Ward N0AX
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|