But (at least for the forseeable future) you won't get everyone to post
scores in realtime.
Not everyone has or can get a high speed Internet connection.
For example, suppose I somehow glom onto a hunting cabin up in Volwinkle PA,
the upper corner of Clarion County, near the border with Forest County?
Very quiet from an RF standpoint. But no dependable cell phone coverage.
No Internet connections. No telephone. No packet network access on VHF.
(And if you don't believe that places like this exist, talk with N3SBF &
KB3GMN, because this is exactly where there cabin is located, and my club
has operated in the Pa QSO Party from there).
How could I possibly participate in a real time scoring system?
Would you disqualify my log because the computer tells you that my home
address has Internet, regardless of where I operated from?
Would I have to apply for an "exemption?" And what if someone with a stick
up his, er, ah, someone who's just plain doesn't care decides not to grant
it to me?
Sorry. We're just not ready for Universal "Real Time" Scoring yet. IMHO,
YMMV.
73
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of David Robbins
K1TTT
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:34 PM
To: 'reflector cq-contest'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
I would rather have everyone post scores in real time... isn't that what I
said? If everyone posted in real time then the 3830 debate would be moot
since all the scores would be collected automatically by the real time
scoreboard and you would know at the end of the contest who won (assuming
log checking doesn't shift order of finish of course).
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of w1md@cfl.rr.com
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 20:10
> To: reflector cq-contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
>
> Hmmm...
>
> So "you" would rather stay in the dark ie. competitors positions in real
> time vs. having an unofficial, "voluntary", after contest posting that
> should be madatory? At least for the participants in the box?
>
> This whole topic is assinine...
>
> SPOTS...SPOTS...SPOTS...my radio for some SPOTS!!!
>
> W1MD
> ---- David Robbins K1TTT <k1ttt@arrl.net> wrote:
> > I feel one of the things many operators are missing is the knowledge of
> how
> > they are doing vs the competition in real time. Just about every other
> > sport or game has some kind of real time comparison to the competition,
> now
> > we do! It makes those of us with adhd more interested because we get
> > instant feedback on how we are doing, waiting days, weeks, or months to
> see
> > claimed or final results is just way too long!
> >
> >
> > David Robbins K1TTT
> > e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> > web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> > AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Beckwith [mailto:n5ot@n5ot.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 13:35
> > > To: k1ttt@arrl.net
> > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> > >
> > > Dave, you're saying these things can't be done in any other way? I
> don't
> > > like real time score posting because I think one of the fundamentals
> of
> > > our
> > > game is the mystery of not knowing how the competitors are doing.
> That
> > > would be lost if real time scoring were implemented.
> > >
> > > (I'm emailing privately at the moment to dodge bullets).
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
> > > To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:20 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> > >
> > >
> > > > Of course the next logical step is to require real time score
> posting
> > > > during
> > > > the contest, that way you could monitor the operation to be sure m/s
> > > > stations only have one signal on the band at a time, in addition to
> > > making
> > > > sure s/o's observe off times and all sorts of other things!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David Robbins K1TTT
> > > > e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> > > > web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> > > > AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> > > >> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 23:16
> > > >> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> > > >>
> > > >> OK. Let me see if I understand this.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mark, buried down there in the reply, you state:
> > > >> "Therefore, it should be safe to assume the final standings should
> be
> > > >> pretty
> > > >> accurately reflected in the perliminary listings."
> > > >>
> > > >> Right there is the logical fallacy. It is not safe to assume
> anything.
> > > >>
> > > >> Your argument claims that it is an unfair surprise to see a high
> score
> > > >> not
> > > >> posted on the 3830 reflector. You state this is "highly
> suspicious."
> > > >> But
> > > >> why?
> > > >>
> > > >> Because someone has failed your expectations by not posting to a
> > > >> voluntary
> > > >> and unofficial source?
> > > >>
> > > >> Because you have assumed, that dangerous word, that all top
> contesters
> > > >> must
> > > >> post to it, and that it becomes a de facto mandate to do so?
> > > >>
> > > >> And you assert that it is better that everyone be forced to post?
> > > >> Otherwise
> > > >> they automatically open themselves up to accusations of cheating?
> > > (Which
> > > >> is
> > > >> what category changes and log massaging implies)
> > > >>
> > > >> Your automatic distrust saddens me. Frankly, as a long time
> contester
> > > >> (albeit not now and probably never a big gun), your lack of faith
> in
> > > your
> > > >> fellow contesters seems unreasonable at the very least.
> > > >>
> > > >> What has caused you to automatically distrust me (and others)?
> Because
> > > >> we
> > > >> sometimes neglect to (or choose not to, for whatever reason) post
> to a
> > > >> voluntary system?
> > > >>
> > > >> How does creating and spreading distrust benefit contesters and
> > > constest
> > > >> sponsors as a whole?
> > > >> -------------
> > > >> Now, if you can convince a contest sponsor to post on a web site
> the
> > > >> preliminary submitted scores, and that this is clearly spelled out
> in
> > > the
> > > >> rules ahead of time, I have no problem. You know this up front,
> you
> > > know
> > > >> this before you send in your log. As Mike N3LI has pointed out
> > > >> previously,
> > > >> there is at least one contest (the Pa QSO Party) that does just
> this.
> > > >> This
> > > >> may even give some participants in rare(r) counties and sections
> > > >> incentive
> > > >> to post -- if they see someone else with a lower score submitting,
> and
> > > >> realize they can beat it, they just might. Keep in mind these
> > > important
> > > >> distinctions: It is clearly stated in the rules that this will
> happen;
> > > >> No
> > > >> surprises. And it was done by the contest sponsor on their own web
> > > site,
> > > >> not making unwarranted use of a 3rd party voluntary system.
> > > >>
> > > >> The model to accomplish this is right there in front of you.
> > > >>
> > > >> But rather than use this example (one of many, but I won't belabor
> the
> > > >> point), you keep hammering away that we should be forced to use a
> > > >> voluntary
> > > >> system.
> > > >>
> > > >> Forced to use a voluntary system.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's not just a perversion of English. That's the fallacy in
> your
> > > >> argument.
> > > >>
> > > >> The problem is not the 3830 Reflector, or it's voluntary use by
> contest
> > > >> participants. The problem is that the contest sponsors have not
> yet
> > > >> taken
> > > >> advantage of existing technology to automatically post to web site
> a
> > > >> preliminary score based on the unchecked submitted log.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's right. Once the Cabrillo or ADIF file is submitted to the
> > > contest
> > > >> robot, it should be childs play to process the log, compute a
> > > preliminary
> > > >> score, and create an entry in a database for display on the web
> site.
> > > >>
> > > >> Will this handle paper logs? No. Neither does 3830. So it's not
> > > >> perfect.
> > > >> But it's a start.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, why don't we quit carping about misuse of a voluntary system,
> and
> > > >> convince the contest sponsors that there's a better way?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > > >> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Mark
> Beckwith
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:31 AM
> > > >> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Posting the preliminary scores is a service to our participants.
> They
> > > >> > see their entry, and they see we have some idea of what their
> score
> > > >> > might be.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think it's reasonable to say they also notice where they placed
> in
> > > >> respect
> > > >> to everyone else near them. I know I do. Call me competitive.
> It's
> > > >> also
> > > >> reasonable to wonder why the order changes between the preliminary
> and
> > > >> final
> > > >> listings. This conversation is all about that.
> > > >>
> > > >> > But there is a reason they are called preliminary. Scores get
> > > changed.
> > > >> > And anyone who relies on the preliminary score as what their
> final
> > > >> > score is might very well be disappointed.
> > > >>
> > > >> In the best case, the only reason to be disapppointed would be to
> be
> > > >> disappointed in oneself. The only reason your score should fall is
> > > that
> > > >> either your copying or your logging were sufficiently erroneous to
> > > cause
> > > >> your score to slip down past some other operators who copied/logged
> > > more
> > > >> accurately than you did.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's a perfect world.
> > > >>
> > > >> In the real world, it is possible to slip down through no fault of
> > > one's
> > > >> copying or logging accuracy, but the stated goal of the log
> checkers,
> > > who
> > > >> are the first to say the process is not perfect, is that the goal
> is to
> > > >> have
> > > >> a system sufficiently good enough so that this does not happen. I
> > > >> personally have yet to hear of a contender who has slipped a
> position
> > > >> between "claimed" and "final" that can be attributed to the removal
> of
> > > >> legitimate, accurately copied contacts which should not have been
> > > >> removed.
> > > >> Some people complain about having good QSOs removed, but did it
> change
> > > >> the
> > > >> order of the box? I don't think it does.
> > > >>
> > > >> Therefore, it should be safe to assume the final standings should
> be
> > > >> pretty
> > > >> accurately reflected in the perliminary listings.
> > > >>
> > > >> Therefore, it should be safe to assume the preliminary listings
> should
> > > be
> > > >> able to be counted on as a pretty good idea of how you're going to
> > > >> finish.
> > > >> If you move up in the standings, you get an extra pat on the back
> for
> > > >> being
> > > >> more accurate than the guy above you was, and the guy who slipped
> knows
> > > >> he
> > > >> has some work to do in the accuracy/logging department.
> > > >>
> > > >> The introduction of a new call to the box in the finals is rightly
> > > highly
> > > >> suspicious and it's better for everyone when that does not happen.
> Did
> > > >> he
> > > >> change categories? Did he massage his log? Did the sponsor accept
> his
> > > >> log
> > > >> after the deadline?
> > > >>
> > > >> That's not a witch hunt. That's due dilligence. It's also easily
> > > >> avoided
> > > >> which is good for everyone. Which is what this is about.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mark, N5OT
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > Checked by AVG.
> > > > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date:
> > > 9/4/2008
> > > > 6:57 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|