[CQ-Contest] spot-analysis
DL8MBS
prickler.schneider at t-online.de
Fri Sep 8 02:26:12 EDT 2006
Some opposition against statistic methods argues that they may not
deliver 110 percent proof. IMHO it could be eased if we had different
penalties like every real sport. Soccer or football games were strange
events if after a foul the referees could only send a player off or do
nothing. So why not impose different point reductions for things looking
like contesting-"fouls" after a thorough check - instead of the
alternative "DQ or do nothing"? (and in sports penalties are spoken out
loudly and displayed clearly for every spectator...). There may be a
rest of uncertainty but that is part of the game in the
milliondollar/-euro sports, too. Even professional referees have to make
controversial decisions still disputed after the seventh replay... But
the basic principle is totally undisputed in sports and making some
referees even popular (I guess there are some other european readers
missing famous italian referee Pierluigi Collina - who proved to know
everything about rules when asked about his role as referee in his
familiy: "I have two daughters - so there are no rules").
As long as we have completely uncontrollable categories like LP and QRP
(and I have to admit I like them) we shouldn´t give up in categories
with a chance to keep things at least as fair as possible. Controlling
is not bad by itself - or why do organizers check logs?
W2EV´s proposal with dropping categories and only stating a set of basic
information (Op-Time, power, antennas, SOxR, Cluster) is very appealing
because it would reduce the incentive to cheat. But I suppose it will
fail mostly due to the big appetite for awards. There was soooo much
enthusiasm with the wave of CQ-awards in last fall...
Thanks for reading and best 73, Chris (DL8MBS)
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list