I fully agree with your comments Doug.
Paperlog time is over and there is no need for a 30 day submission period.
In the old days post contest dupe checking was a must, task on its own, but
had to be done in order not to claim credit for duplicate QSOs. 30 day
period for a log submission in those years made sense. Today, when none of
the top scorers submitts a paper log, edditing after the contest, using all
possible means includig "ears' of others to decode what has not been decoded
during the contest is clearly outside the time allocated for competition. By
listening your own log and editting errors made during possible "reduced
concentration" periods is to me extending contest time beyond the time set
by the rules.
When NBA game is over, there are no more attempts for "nearly 3 pointer"
misses. In our hobby it seem to be allowed and (ab)used to compensate not
only for the obvious typos, but also operating skills.
Having read TF4M mail about Topband DX-ing using a remote RX makes me think
that fair competition days are nowadays even more heavily influenced by
technology. If technology is used to gain advantage against the rules,
record charts will become meaningless soon.
Fight against the technology cheaters requires focusing more on the
anti-cheating technology, which, I am happy to note, seem to be used more
and more by various contest committees.
73 Ivo I7/9A3A
----- Original Message -----
From: <kr2q@optimum.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:34 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Post contest log massaging (the issue in a
nutshell -maybe?)
> Here is MY 2 cents, not in any way to be construed as having anything to
> do with any
> contest committee with which I may be associated.
>
> Some entrants (aka "competitors") have lost sight of what it means to be a
> competitor versus
> what it means to be the judging/adjudicating body.
>
> Entrants compete during the designated period. After the contest, IMHO,
> they should NOT
> be reviewing their log with the intent of finding "errors" for the purpose
> of CORRECTING
> them.
>
> The role of the judges/adjudicators is to review the log and find "errors"
> and, as appropriate,
> apply the mandated deductions and penalties, yielding an adjudicated final
> score.
>
> Attempting to classify various logged elements as "typographical mistakes"
> is simply a very
> slippery slope. If you log, KKKRRR as a complete callsign, sure, that is
> very likely a
> "typographical error." If you log KR2QQ (me), is that a copying error or
> a logging error?
> More difficult to say. If you work NV6O but logged N4BO (copying error),
> should the entrant
> review some database or other knowledge base (cluster, other logs, or
> other ops) and then
> somehow "determine" that was really NV6O and CHANGE THE CALL after the
> contest ends?
>
> I am guessing that "most" of us would not have an issue "removing" KKKRRR
> from the log
> (nobody is going to get dinged for that as a NIL). I am guessing that
> most of us (but not
> all), would say that correcting N4BO into NV6O is out-and-out cheating.
>
> Solution? If possible, "No post contest changing of anything in the log."
> I mean really, how
> many KKKRRR errors are there going to be? Enough to alter the place of
> finish? I sure hope
> not! For me, both of the "other" types were errors made during the heat
> of the battle and
> should STAND as an included part of the log. That is what is genuinely
> REPRESENTATIVE
> of YOUR ACTUAL EFFORT as recorded DURING the contest...and for me, that is
> what should
> count.
>
> So, in summary....
> Entrants should compete DURING the contest. Judges should adjudicate
> after the contest.
>
> de Doug KR2Q
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|