[CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

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 at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Mark Beckwith
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:31 AM
To: cq-contest at 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 at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest