[CQ-Contest] [FCG] CQ WW Rules and SCP
Steve Sacco NN4X
nn4x at embarqmail.com
Sun Jun 23 10:34:48 EDT 2013
I've been following this latest thread by the cq-contest-lawyers with my
usual disdain.
I'd like to short circuit the thread, and suggest that there are two
logical end-points we can arrive at which will, once and for all, make
things "right" by those who enjoy arguing more than playing radio:
1) The logging function be moved to a (heaven help me for using this IT
industry cliche) "cloud-based solution". This would migrate control
over QSO's to a centralized logging service. This service could perform
any number of functions, but ensuring the integrity of the QSO
("transaction" in IT-speak) in real-time would be one of those
functions. In other words, once the QSO is committed, it can not be
changed.
2) I've mentioned this solution previously, but sincerely believe it to
be the ultimate and only solution for those who would rather argue than
play radio: Convert radiosport competitions from real-world efforts to
MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game) efforts. The entire field of
play would be virtualized, and the competitor would be released from
meat-space issues such as actual sunspot conditions, local zoning
constraints, spouse/neighbor concerns regarding towers and antennas, and
the pesky business of of station engineering and building. The
contestant would be free to compete in a known "level playing field"
(except that I'm sure the cq-virtual-contest-lawyers would then insist
that the game either unwittingly or, more darkly - on purpose - included
ways for certain competitors go gain unfair advantage).
Think of the possibilities here! In a Virtual-CQ-Contest, you could
operate a station of your own design (perhaps bought with "credits"?
Hey, I'm just brainstorming here!), located at a QTH of your own
choosing. Virtual propagation conditions would be set by the contest
administrators, and could be announced ahead of time, or for an added
exciting spin, chosen randomly (hope you designed your virtual station
correctly!).
Other possibilities would include having the competitors all operating
from the same virtual-QTH, where every other station would be
computer-generated. Talk about determining the best operator! Who needs
WRTC when you have this?
Clearly, technology has a way to go before this will work for virtual
phone contests - consider that not only would it have to be able to
understand the competitor's voice, it would have to speak in any number
of accents, and be able to generate virtual QRM, wide, distorted
signals, and so on and so forth.
So, there you have it. The Ultimate Solution!
73 to all,
Steve
NN4X
EL98jh
On 6/23/2013 9:56 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
> We (contesting) are in the midst of a transition.
>
> When electronic logs enabled computer checking, it was eye opening to see
> all of the errors in logs. UBN reports showed everything in graphic
detail.
> Listings of operator accuracy appeared. It became a badge of honor to
have a
> low error rate.
>
> It should be no surprise that once something is measured - AND has an
impact
> on the final score - that operators would use various methods to improve
> their accuracy. Most of this "log washing" was done after the contest.
>
> Several years ago the CQWW Contest Committee saw the effects of this
trend
> and how logs were being grossly manipulated. They began to add rules
to help
> detect and fight these practices.
>
> One example is to shorten the log deadline to 5 days. Another is to
require
> stations to log what they said over the air. This way (and this only
> applies in very rare cases), the log checker could use the SDR to confirm
> that the log was not being changed after the fact.
>
> This transition via rule changes has been fairly abrupt. It is
running into
> "accepted practices" that allowed and encouraged log cleaning.
Everyone is
> adjusting to the new paradigm.
>
> The spirit of the effort is very simple -- keep the contest within the
> contest period and over the air. I.e., log what you think you
worked. When
> the contest is over, send in your log.
>
> If everyone did this, we would return to a test of radio operating skills
> rather than a test of log cleaning.
>
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Richard F DiDonna NN3W
>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 8:49 PM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [FCG] CQ WW Rules and SCP
>>
>> I'm having a slight issue with one thing you've written Bob. You wrote
>> that it is "not OK to go back and correct this after the fact." This
>> seems at odds with what I have heard stations say for years: namely that
>> if you make a change during the contest in in the minutes immediately
>> after the contest, its OK. Indeed, in WRTC, you're allowed 30
minutes to
>> make corrections and to enter in any notes that you made during the
>> contest.
>>
>> Two examples come to mind:
>> in CQWW, you work HG108DX on one band but you entered the call into your
>> log as HG109DX. You work him three hours later on a different band yet
>> your worked call history shows you have never worked HG108DX, but you
>> KNOW you worked him. A quick scan of partials indicates you purportedly
>> worked HG109DX, but you know now this to be wrong. My understanding is
>> that you've always been able to make this correction during the
contest.
>>
>> In ARRL DX (from the W/VE side), you work GW4BLE and you enter 59 100 as
>> his power. Three hours later, you work GW4BLE and you clearly hear him
>> say 59 400 which conflicts with what you think he said earlier. A
verbal
>> confirmation that 59 400 is correct and has been correct leads you to
>> change what you entered in the first QSO. Again, my understanding is
>> that you've always been able to make this correction during the contest.
>>
>> 73 Rich NN3W
>>
>> On 6/17/2013 1:32 PM, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
>>> I am curious how these scenarios are being read into rules that say
>>> nothing about correcting typos or using SCP?
>>>
>>> "Check Partial" or "Super Check Partial" doesn't ever "log" anything.
>>> The operator chooses a suggested callsign and then *HE* logs that, but
>>> it is not CP or SCP doing the logging.
>>>
>>> The rule is strictly on using *outside* means of analyzing and
>>> correcting your log. If *you* figure out that *you* made a typo,
>>> that's not what this rule is talking about - is it?
>>>
>>> Even so, the rest of the pertinent section says:
>>>
>>> VIII.9 All logging must be performed in real time.
>>>
>>> VIII.10. Call signs logged must be the same as those exchanged
>>> over the air by the entrants during the QSO.
>>>
>>> Q: How does that affect the above?
>>>
>>> A: Let's say that you log and work K1ABZ during the contest. Later,
>>> you somehow realize you should misheard his callsign and it should
>>> have been K1ABC. In this scenario, you said "K1ABZ" (Alpha Bravo
>>> Zulu) on the air and logged K1ABZ. It is not OK to go back and correct
>> this after the fact.
>>> You made an error - clearly. Fixing it after the fact does not undo
>>> the error - does it?
>>>
>>> One thing that is quite different is that with the advent of SDR, the
>>> committee can hear virtually every qso that takes place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> W5OV
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list