[CQ-Contest] computers ruined contesting

[Kelly Taylor]

While I sympathize with the perception the points were unfairly dinged (who
knows, maybe they were), I think this highlights a tweak that could be made
to the system rather than a resounding condemnation.

OTOH (there's always one of those, isn't there), the rules for ARRL contests
DO say that callsigns and exchange info must be sent, received and logged
correctly by BOTH stations for a QSO to count.

So, if I send VE4XT/W0 and you log W0/VE4XT, is there an error? The
effective result is the same, certainly no different than when I send 5NN T4
and you log 599 04. Worth considering.

Computers have not ruined contesting. If anything, they've directed our
energies even more closely to the actual task at hand: using radios and
receiving and sending information. That they have freed us from ancillary
drudgery like dupe sheets, pencil vs. pen, mechanical vs. wooden, etc.
allows us to focus on what really matters.

That log checking provides an even more accurate picture of how we actually
did -- including those times we didn't do so well -- only makes the final
results that much more meaningful. (Did he win because his log was poorly
checked and errors slipped through or did he win because his log was
actually cleaner than the other guy's?)

The folks who advocate adjustments only for "the contenders" miss the point:
if you look at, say SS (the contest results I'm most familiar with), you get
pretty deep into the standings before someone isn't contending for
something. W4ATL placed 14th in the standings: does that mean his claiming
the GA low-power record is less meaningful to him? What if, as a contender,
his log was scrutinized while the GA runner-up's was not and W4ATL lost
against the unscrutinized log? Is that fair to him?

If you make log checking only for the top tier, then those people are the
only ones for whom victory will mean anything. It will just be a
free-for-all for the also-rans and none of those results is worth a tinker's
damn. You don't need to win a contest to need your result to be meaningful.

Alan's situation is unique, and highlights a bug, perhaps. But I think we'll
be Beta-testing log checking till most of us have turned to dust. That
something could be improved doesn't mean you throw it away.

If we accept that contesting is not just a rate-fest -- that accuracy and
precision count too -- then how could accuracy in adjudication be a bad
thing?

If there's an Olympic equivalent to contesting, it's equestrian: you,
generally, remain seated for the entire performance, you have to deal with a
lot of horse s*** and you not only have to be fastest, but most graceful and
precise too.

Accuracy at speed is the greatest challenge in contesting. Any moron can run
at 250 an hour if he doesn't care about precision. That also means you have
to reward accuracy and you can't do that if you're all but the top tier off
easy.

73, kelly
ve4xt

Without radio, we're nuthin' but amateurs.