CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:29:34 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I would assume that you would be ok with a new contest or contests that make this requirement?

Online gaming deals with this all the time. If you are not online you are not in the game. It is just part of the deal.

Trying to force this on CQ WW or ARRL DX would probably not go over well.

Ward did talk about about this in his initial post allowing logs to be saved and then transmitted after or once the internet comes back up. All these points need to be discussed.

W0MU



On 11/11/2016 8:30 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
  Good point.


Imagine a station with a top score in the category being DQ'd for failing to 
run real-time scoring, or for failing to post their score within 30 minutes of 
the contest ending...


All because some yahoo with a backhoe accidentally severed the fiber or 
telephone cables providing internet service to an area (or an auto accident 
taking out a poll, or a major snowstorm caused issues, and so forth) and the 
service wasn't restored until a day or three later.


Look, I have no problem with real-time scoring, for those who choose to 
participate in it.  If that's your thing, more power to you.  But imposing it 
as mandatory on everyone, just because the technology exists?  That's another 
story.


73, ron w3wn
On 11/11/16, ve4xt@mymts.net wrote:

The idea real-time logging will eliminate cheating is somewhat overstated, I 
think.

Cheaters gonna cheat. They'll just find another way.

If you really want to "sell" real-time scoring, focusing on the negative isn't 
the way.

To me, the real benefit is the introduction of immediacy to the results. Gamers 
know how they're doing all through the competition. We, really, don't know 
until six months later. That latency is a negative when trying to recruit new 
blood in the age of immediate results.

But, and this is huge, a significant part of contesting are the folks who 
operate off the grid, as it were. I'm working on a station at the cottage, 
where we don't have Internet. Others activate field-day style for some 
contests, and the best DX-pedition locations have zero infrastructure.

You going to tell a future Heard Island we don't want you in WW?

I'd love to see a real-time overlay for contests, but wouldn't want to see 
real-time scoring become mandatory. It's a mistake to base policy on the false 
assumption everyone operates under the same conditions.

73, kelly, ve4xt

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 11, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net> wrote:

It could be done, yes.


But is it really worth doing? That is the question that I have yet to hear an 
answer to.


What is the rush?


Yes, I understand that a good number of people want near-instant results. And 
yes, I 'get' that a good number of people think this will serve as a deterrent 
to 'cheating' (though I strongly suspect that those with at best questionable 
ethics will simply figure out another way).


Regardless, this still strikes me as a solution in search of a problem -- or 
worse, a solution that may end up being worse than the perceived problem.

73, ron w3wn

On 11/10/16, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:

It could be done today. Not entirely different than real time scoring
on steroids. To stop any Tom foolery the contacts to be uploaded would
be encrypted. Once you hit enter that qso is locked in...Done no
corrections.

Start on a Sprint or a CWT or similar 4 hour event or maybe even a one
hour event.

W0MU


On 11/10/2016 1:51 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
Buffering, my boy, buffering!

The online gamers don't seem to have too many problems. Yeah, there
are outages and they shriek in fury. Our game would go on apace
(except for maybe no spots) but there would be a backlog (see, the log
will never die) to upload once service is restored. And I'm sure
completely off-line entries would be acceptable.

We just need to start moving in this direction to see what problems
arise.

73, Wardster


On 11/10/2016 2:32 PM, Jeff Stai wrote:

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com
<mailto:hwardsil@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would prefer in the long term that QSOs are submitted in real-time


As great as that sounds, that will be a long time coming I expect and
hope, considering how often my internet goes down...

73 jeff wk6i


--
Jeff Stai ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com <mailto:wk6i.jeff@gmail.com>
Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
Facebook ~ http://www.facebook.com/twistedoak
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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>