[CQ-Contest] computers ruined contesting

[Leigh S. Jones]

Mark, I think you're missing the point.

What this discussion is about is the contest community seeking open
and democratic discussions and decision-making on the subject of log
checking.  Certainly, some may misunderstand the process, as you point
out.  That's a natural result of the central problem present in
computerized log checking these days.

Computerized log checking (or the lack of it) is an issue across all
contests at present; it affects the entire contesting community.  Log
checking should be handled as nearly as possible in an equal fashion
regardless of which contest is in question.  Issues surrounding this
subject should be above the influence of sponsorship, and in the hands
of the contesting community.  Decisions on this subject should not be
made by the programmers of the log checking programs.  The programmers
should be working to specifications that originate with open and
democratic discussions and decision-making and the full concurrence of
the contesting community.

As evidenced by the nature of the discussion, our present log checking
system is based on exactly the opposite set of principles.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Beckwith" <mark at concertart.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] computers ruined contesting


> At first glance these seem like legitimate questions for heated
contester
> debate:
>
> >What about K vs. 1000 vs. KW?
>
> >I know if I hear WA1ABC/DU1 and five minutes later
> >I hear DU1/WA1ABC that it's the same guy.
>
> I like to vent just as much as anyone, but in the case of this
thread, I
> think once it has come out that the actual log errors turned out to
be
> completely different from those initially supposed, that would be an
> appropriate time to stop and wonder if it was worth continuing to
discuss
> what turned out after all to be "pretend" problems.
>
> I believe we can safely say:
>
> 1. nobody gets dinged for changing where they put the portable
designator,
> whether sending or logging.  When Dan said "each log checker has
their own
> feelings about this," I bet the part he left out which he should
have said
> was "and all the log checkers have talked about it and decided to
feel the
> same about this."
>
> 2. nobody is getting dinged for changing from KW to 1000 either,
whether
> sending or logging.
>
> 3. in reality the checkers are somewhat lenient at times, and some
people
> are saying they shouldn't be so lenient.
>
> 4. tightening this aspect of log checking would result in a
Pandora's Box of
> undesirable side-effects, for example:
>
> When he said "five-nine-thousand" did he pronounce the final "d"?
Is
> "thousand" spelled with a capital T or a lower case T?  Was he
actually
> saying "1000"?  What if you just write "kw", do you get in trouble?
>
> On CW when he sent 599 K did he forget to send the power and was he
turning
> it back over to you?
>
> My point is, the checkers have thought about the side effects and
drawn a
> line where the job is getting done well in every day application.
>
> I have yet to see a post which shows this is not the case.
>
> Mark, N5OT
>