I would agree that there is value in the information. I think the point of
the scoreboard is to make the competition better which some may not want.
Logs are guarded or protected better than race car modifications. Are there
any other competitions where you are not allowed to view what happened after
the event?
Is there enough value in that information to really help a competitor
especially if that information is 10, 15, 20 , 30 , 60 minutes old?
One possible solution would be that Single Op entrants could not see other
Single Op scores or they would be delayed or the top 20 or 30 would be
masked. Obviously a friend could report to the single op via IM or text
message, email or whatever.
Alternatively, the score could be reported nearly live and at the end of the
contest the breakdowns would be immediately available?
Mike W0MU
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Randy Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:29 PM
To: 'Gerry Hull'; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] tech challenge - SAY WHAT?
W1VE said:
> Even so, it would be easy to report only total score/mults to a
> scoreboard.
> Would that satisfy the "old guard" mentality?
> I doubt it.
I disagree. Reporting only total score is about the only way I will ever
support a live scoreboard that can be seen by single ops. Has nothing to do
with "old guard" mentality. Has everything to do with the value of
information.
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Hull
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:45 AM
> To: Bill Turner
> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] tech challenge - SAY WHAT?
>
> Bill, Score Reporting is NOT spotting. I'd like to see you find ANY
> station in a contest by looking at someone's score breakdown.
>
> Even so, it would be easy to report only total score/mults to a
> scoreboard.
> Would that satisfy the "old guard" mentality?
> I doubt it.
>
> 73, Gerry W1VE
>
>
>
> On 5/28/07, Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net> wrote:
> >
> > ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
> >
> > On Fri, 25 May 2007 20:51:43 -0400, Hank Greeb
> <n8xx@arrl.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Why do we say that to be in a particular category one must operate
> > >with pre 1980's technology?
> >
> > ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> >
> > Why? Well, since you asked, a lot of us think that spotting
> networks
> > are a plague on contesting. A lot of us still like to use that big
> > knob in the middle of the radio to find stations to work.
> >
> > You can agree or disagree but that should answer your question.
> >
> > Bill W6WRT
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
> Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post your score to
> http://www.getscores.org!
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|