James Duffey wrote:
> Dallas - You wrote:
> "The one point that I have not seen profered is, if the logs have been
> adjudicated by the contest committee, why would you want/need to see
> them. In otherwords, what's in it for you to see my logs?"
>
> Well, for one thing, it will satisfy my curiosity. For example, if I
> am sure that I worked you, and got a NIL from the log checkers for our
> QSO, I really want to know what is in your log when I thought we worked.
Are you willing to pay for that curiosity?
> Expanding on this point, publishing logs will let anyone check the
> checkers. It will make the log checking process open to all. It will
> make the log checkers directly accountable their actions.
Good Lord. I cannot understand why anyone would want to check the log
checkers. Become a log checker if you want to check logs. Do some good
for the contesting community.
> For ARRL
> contests the log checkers word is law; they will not entertain
> questions about rejected QSOs. Now, there is no recourse to verify
> that what they have checked has been checked correctly. It is like a
> court of law that only publishes the verdict.I understand why this is
> so, but I think that it is dangerous that a group who has so much
> power makes decisions that cannot be verified. I do not think that
> they abuse this power now, in fact, I think that they do a great job.
> That may not always be the case however. Publishing logs opens the log
> checking to scrutiny from anyone and that is good.
Have you checked logs? submitted logs are not consistent, and some of
the inconsistencies take judgment to resolve. And anywhere there is
judgment, there is room for different interpretations. And people will
interpret them in a way that will personally benefit them. So you want
an appeal process that pits a presumably unbiased log checker against
people that will have a real benefit if they can knock someone else off
their post......
Lets have a sample lesson:
Contest times:
Ops A and B have Matching QSO's, but the time is 2 minutes off. Operator
C sees that, and contests the QSO. Coincidentally, Op 3 will win his/her
division, displacing Op A.
Your decision?
Some programs will allow mis-spelled sections.
Op 1 has a QSO with Michigan. Spells it MG instead of MI. You know the
other OP is in Michigan.
Busted QSO?
Most people Would say yes. But there are programs that will refuse to
enter a bad section. Do they have an unfair advantage?
And should sponsors have to watermark the logs with Time of Arrival?
This could be a serious one, given that there are internet "holes".
Log comes in 5 minutes after the deadline.
Good log or DQ?
Log was sent early enough, but got caught up in a hole.
Good log or DQ.
This might seem easy, depending on your outlook, and how strict you are.
But since you don't have a final judgment, it is appealable.
Someone contests that. The later log knocks them out of first place. How
many appeals are there?
Quite frankly, with what you want, it seems as if there will be two
contests. The actual one, and a war of attrition afterward. Last Ham
standing? 8^)
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|