On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:28:19AM -0800, Joe Contester wrote:
> I was hoping that someone would ask this question. I
> believe that _we_ define it (many here seem to have
> already, haven't they?), then we compete to whatever
> that definition is. Submitting to a central authority
> is nothing more than the public recognician of our
> participation. "Categories" are nothing more than a
> way to segment the printed results when the medium is
> a page in a printed magazine.
>
I think first we must define who. Who are you?
> What if we weren't afraid to think entirely
> differently? Imagine a Radiosporting world where
> there is a combination of several of the ideas already
> floated here (tnx K0HB, W6WRT, K1TTT, K5TR, W2EV and
> others):
>
What if we weren't afraid to give our true name and call?
> 1. Identify all of the factors that come to play for
> scoring potential and design a client that captures
> them all. Stations would input their information in a
> "setup screen" prior to starting the event. Note:
> input is still being sought on this -> off list,
> please.
>
One factor. Trust. Who are you?
> 2. Create a cluster of Internet-based Telnet servers
> that the client-side software would send statistical
> information to (not QSO-specific -- simply stats)
> periodically.
>
Telnet? You are kidding right.
> 4. At the end of the event, the full-log is submitted
> automatically (be accurate, it's part of the
> skillset!) and the results are posted in score-order
> (no categorization) by default with the ability to
> resort the results in a way that is similar to the way
> that the ARRL does in it's online system.
>
I guess the people with no access to internet connections won't count, eh.
> "Welcome to the next level" :)
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radiosporting/
>
So who is running this? We don't even know who you are, but I have my
suspects.
Pat N8VW
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|