So, now participants use the internet to confirm QSOs diring the contest?
Isn"t using e-mail or chat rooms to perform this function against the rules?
Why would using a centralized server to do the same thing be desirable?
73,
Mark
On November 11, 2016 9:21:51 AM EST, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com> wrote:
>Part of real-time QSO submission is being able to cross-check a QSO
>relatively quickly and report back to both submitters whether it is a
>valid QSO. If after making a QSO with UA9CDC, I am notified later by
>the cross-check service that the QSO was invalid because of a mistake
>by
>me or a mistake by Igor, I can go back and make another attempt at a
>valid QSO. Because there is no post-event log, there needs to be no
>post-event penalty because the error can be corrected during the
>contest
>with another contact, just like any other sport. The QSO either counts
>
>or it doesn't. Penalties are only necessary in today's contests
>because
>of the post-event log being what is judged. Getting rid of the
>post-event log solves a lot of judging and behavioral problems.
>
>Obviously, there is a lot of distance between where we are today with
>post-event logs being cross-checked after the event and real-time
>contest QSO validation but as you can see from ClubLog and DXA, the
>basic structures exist on a smaller scale and longer timeline. Imagine
>
>a "blank" Contest-LOTW being established before each contest,
>configured
>to match calls, date/time, band, and exchange. Contest QSOs are signed
>
>and delivered to the Contest-LOTW server just as they are now for
>ordinary day-to-day QSOs to LOTW. In fact, people are automatically
>sending day-to-day QSOs one-by-one to LOTW as they are made, under the
>control of TQSL and their general-purpose logging software. It's
>happening now and there are automated reporting tools to extract
>reports
>from LOTW as to what contacts have been validated, construct a scoring
>leaderboard, etc.
>
>All the pieces exist today. What is needed is integration and enough
>server horsepower to handle the load - the cloud is cheap and even a
>full-blown amateur radio contest is not really all that much data
>compared to a commercial application. Bandwidth requirements on the
>submitter end are minimal. Simple Matter of Programming :-)
>
>73, Ward N0AX
>
>On 11/10/2016 5:48 PM, Igor Sokolov wrote:
>> Ward,
>> Very interesting. But this approach begs the question: If
>> prescription finally got wrong (name of the medicine or dosage) who's
>
>> fault is it? Transmitter or receiver? Should not both sides be
>penalized?
>>
>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>>
>> ----- Исходное сообщение ----- От: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil@gmail.com>
>> Кому: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Отправлено: 10 ноября 2016 г. 21:18
>> Тема: Re: [CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)
>>
>>
>>> > If it wasn't a penmanship contest then, why is it a typing contest
>
>>> now?
>>>
>>> At the risk of setting off a "plastic owl pointing true north by
>>> remote control" thread...
>>>
>>> Why is it that we have contests at all? It is to practice our
>>> ability to communicate and to reward effectiveness - in whatever
>form
>>> that takes. Part of it is knowing when the bands are open and
>>> closed. Part of it is assembling a station that works well. Part
>of
>>> it is having good operating technique. And part of it is accurately
>
>>> transcribing the exchanged information into whatever format is
>required.
>>>
>>> We are fond of claiming that contesting makes us good public service
>
>>> operators and all that back-patting we do for ourselves. Imagine we
>
>>> are relaying orders for prescription medicines needed in a disaster
>>> area. Is a typo in "hydrochlorothiazide" acceptable because we were
>
>>> in a hurry? ("Can you give me that phonetically before the band
>>> closes?") Is mistakenly changing a dosage of 50 mg to 500 mg OK
>>> because we hit 0 twice? ("Whoa - how did that huge hairy bat get in
>>> here?") Of course not...we would recognize that as an error and we
>>> should do so when N0AX gets changed to N0XA. Each unforced error
>>> needs to produce negative feedback so we will work to lower our
>error
>>> rate. The CQ WW introduction of penalties for errors was exactly
>the
>>> right remedy for sloppy operating because it provides both carrot
>and
>>> stick to operate at a rate no faster than what optimizes effective
>>> operating. Nothing is error-free but a three-QSO penalty has a way
>>> of focusing the mind.
>>>
>>> At any rate (so to speak), anything noted during the period of
>>> competition is fair game for log correction. I would prefer in the
>>> long term that QSOs are submitted in real-time and verified shortly
>>> thereafter so that this whole notion of "log" goes away along with
>>> all the misbehavior and delays it engenders, but in the mean time,
>>> transcription into the submitted record of competition is as much a
>>> part of the contest as transmitting the information in the first
>place.
>>>
>>> 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
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|