Hi Kevan,
An overlay such as I am suggesting is the logical first step. No sense diving
head first into something that could be infested with man-eating sharks.
No, many contesters actually don’t have real-time access to the Internet at the
station location. Just because I’m writing this from the comfort of my home in
the city doesn’t mean this is where I will contest.
Many contesters like things the way they are: I would argue these contesters
are the core of our participation. Driving them away would be a bad thing. You
can’t force people to participate if they don’t like the contest. Witness the
boycott of the RDXC.
I also do question whether confirming QSOs via the Internet violates the idea
that we should do things over the air, and should accept the consequences of
messing up. Even if all we get back is a notice “QSO 1234, with W0DLE, invalid”
it means we get the chance to go back and do it right. How is that different
than phoning W0DLE and saying “Hey, I got 134 A 82 CO, is that correct?”
73, kelly, ve4xt
> On Nov 11, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Kevan Nason <knason00@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> N4XL
> "Starting at "some can't therefore we shouldn't" has stopped a lot of
> projects over the years"
>
> VE4XT
> "I argued “most won’t, but we should find a way for those who want to.” "
>
> That's the difference in a nutshell and basis for the discussion. Some don't
> want to make it mandatory. Others think it is potentially very beneficial.
> I'm continuing Ward's point that doing so might very well make many ethic
> discussions and DQ's for cheating moot. Obviously not all, but it looks like
> it could very well be a step in a positive direction to improving contesting
> operating skills in particular and in general the services provided by hams
> to their communities. Why not explore that thought some more?
>
> Let's put some particulars out. Counter with others like Heard Island. Get
> the discussion going.
>
> It seems clear you and I and several thousand other contesters have the
> internet and would be able to do real time scoring and/or quickly submit
> scores. I've nothing to back it up, but there is tremendous internet use
> during and right after a contest so it appears many have already have the
> means. Not everyone uses a logger that could do it. They probably could
> though. N1MM is free. Or the capability could likely be added to those that
> don't. What other reasons people couldn't (not wouldn't) do real time scoring?
>
> What if real time scoring wasn't real time? Would updates every hour, two,
> six, twelve suffice?
>
> I'll give you a problem I recently solved. I live in the country and only
> wireless internet is available. Until recently I had a 5 gig limit to my
> internet. It's now up to 50, but doing real time scoring and operating
> assisted ate that 5 gig up pretty quickly and I sometimes paid over use
> charges. I wouldn't want to have had mandatory real time scoring then. If
> that was the rule though it would not have stopped me from contesting. Maybe
> not everyone who had a shot at winning could afford those over usage charges.
> And as you pointed out, not every location has internet by either wired or
> wireless. That is a problem to try and solve.
>
> You gave another example. The DXpedition where no internet is available. Not
> sure about solution there, but Hughes net has satellite service and Google
> supposedly launching balloons or something soon. That could be included in
> the planning cost of the DXpedition for those expecting to contest while
> there. To state the obvious, not all DXpeditions are interested in a winning
> contest score though so how big a problem is that? Assuming Heard Island
> wants a shot at a winning contest score, maybe the internet just doesn't
> reach to Heard Island. Maybe it does. I don't know one way or the other. Do
> you? Seems there is likely one or more possible solutions out there though. A
> lot DXpeditions manage to find a way to get logs out on the internet while
> they are doing their thing. There is likely some way. What about HF data
> transfer? The proposed data rate changes by the ARRL to the FCC may offer
> additional HF log data transfer opportunities (i.e.: periodic log transfers
> to a U.S. or other HF station for upload). Not sure what the current rules
> are for other countries. Maybe that can already be done?
>
> My point is I don't know everything. Absolutely no disrespect intended, but I
> don't think you do either. It seems technically possible and there is
> probably an administrative way to handle the exceptions. Other than the
> obvious of personal choice, what reasons does the group have to saying it
> simply can't be done?
>
> Kevan
> N4XL
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|