----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca>
To: "Mark Beckwith" <mark@concertart.com>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] computers ruined contesting
> I think Mark's right about this. Olympic athletes get no say in how
drug
> tests are performed.
>
History is replete with examples of Olympic competitors who were
abused
by the organizers. Despite the best intentions of the Olympic
committees over
the years, this event remains a shining example of failed policies
being forced
on the world by the organizers. If it were not for the immense flow
of drama
and the majestic of the athletic accomplishments seen in the Olympics,
the
failures of administration of the Olympics would be more clearly
visible.
You've chosen the wrong example here.
The trouble with the Olympics is the "top down" organization. A few
well
intentioned organizers are responsible for decisions that are too
important
to get wrong but which are so complex that they are beyond the reach
of
command from above.
Mitigating this problem, in the case of the Olympics, is the strong
support
that the national Olympic committees give to their own atheletes. The
national committees have some power to defend their own atheletes,
providing for some degree of checks and balances against abuse from
above.
In the case of log-checking, the only checks and balances are the
sensibilities of the man writing the program. Now, we are very lucky
for one thing. I'm going to be a little bit brash here and assert
that
one single man writing the program is responsible for the great
majority
of the most important decisions. That man is Larry Tyree, N6TR, and
he deserves our thanks.
> They do, however, have a right to a full understanding of how the
tests
> work. That's what the contest community has: the right to know how
it works.
> And, having paid attention over the years to all the posts from Tree
and
> Trey and others, I think that's what they've tried to do.
>
I agree with the above.
> But determining the process should be in the hands of the sponsor,
who will
> set up the rules in line with the desired flavour of the contest,
much like
> the S&P rule in sprints. The sponsor's responsibility, then, is only
to
> communicate the rules to the contest community.
>
Here's where we disagree, and in my case the disagreement is strong.
The process should be in the hands of the contesting community, and
the contesting community should proactively protect itself from abuses
at the hands of sponsors.
> I think when you leave adjudication in the hands of the adjudicated,
an
> undeniable conflict of interests comes into play.
>
In Canada they still put the queen's image on their money, don't they.
Here in the United States we've become a bit more confident with the
principles of self rule.
> None of this should be taken to mean that you can't complain about
processes
> or rules you don't like. That is your right. But it's also the
sponsor's
> right to disagree.
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
I was going to try to let you have the last word. But I really need
to add something here. It's just that in the United States we have
pictures of past presidents on our money. The literal and symbolic
meanings of the pictures on US vs. Canadian money are truly
emblematic of differences in the understanding that our two
populations differ upon regarding the just powers of government.
We honor the memories of past presidents by placing their
pictures in places of importance, while in Canada those places
of importance are occupied by command from overseas. Go
figure.
|