[CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)

Ron Notarius W3WN wn3vaw at verizon.net
Fri Nov 11 11:18:39 EST 2016

Speak for yourself.  I'm not old, just experienced!  <g>

Seriously, though...

Is your goal to make contesting, or more precisely real-time contesting, more akin to online gaming?  The allure of online gaming is more than just instant scoring, there is a level of interaction involved there as well.  Online gaming and RPG is a very nice thing for those who are interested... but not everyone is interested.

Regardless, you seem to be proposing some massive changes or even overhaul in how contests would be operated.  I can not even begin to fathom most of the unforseen consequences, and I can think of quite a few, but I think it's safe to say that this concept would be a fundamental change.
And there is no guarantee that this change would, in and of itself, bring in 'new blood' to contesting.  Which is what you're after.  Shouldn't we be a little more certain of the sought after results, before we blindly and irrevocably make these changes?

I'm not saying "no".  I am saying "not yet".  IMHO.

Perhaps what we need, first, is a "proof of concept".  Can you convince a large-enough 'sample size' of contesters to demonstrate, during an upcoming contest, how this would work?  That the servers can, indeed, handle it?  (I know it's been assumed that they will, but do we actually know?  Can you demonstrate how scoring would be affected by those that (for whatever reason) operate in the contest but choose not to participate in real-time scoring?  How do you allow for stations, specifically major players, that either lose internet access due to no fault of their own, or do not have it available in the first place?

Let's see some real examples of this.  Then we can talk.  Otherwise, this is all theory.

And let's be honest.  A fundamental overhaul like this will cause at least some contest operators to cut back or even not operate a given event.  Will the alleged number of new operators that these changes might attract offset those losses?

73, ron w3wn

On 11/11/16, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:

The rush? Looked in the mirror lately :) We are a bunch of old 
farts.... Seriously there is no real rush.

The allure of online gaming is that results are instant. You don't play 
a shoot em up match and then wait to see who won a month or a year later.

Realtime scoring, judging etc might...or might not be the ticket to lure 
more of the younger generations to contesting and the hobby.

We are working contests with the same archaic rules and systems for lots 
and lots of years. People give me pretty strange looks when I say yeah 
I talked to people all over the world in a contest and I will know the 
results a year from now. What other sporting event does that happen? 
None. We even expect tot know the results of our elections hours after 
the polling places close.

People don't like change. This may never fly but if we never try we 
will never know.


On 11/11/2016 5:26 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> It could be done, yes.
> But is it really worth doing? That is the question that I have yet to hear an answer to.
> What is the rush?
> Yes, I understand that a good number of people want near-instant results. And yes, I 'get' that a good number of people think this will serve as a deterrent to 'cheating' (though I strongly suspect that those with at best questionable ethics will simply figure out another way).
> Regardless, this still strikes me as a solution in search of a problem -- or worse, a solution that may end up being worse than the perceived problem.
> 73, ron w3wn
> On 11/10/16, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> It could be done today. Not entirely different than real time scoring
> on steroids. To stop any Tom foolery the contacts to be uploaded would
> be encrypted. Once you hit enter that qso is locked in...Done no
> corrections.
> Start on a Sprint or a CWT or similar 4 hour event or maybe even a one
> hour event.
> W0MU
> On 11/10/2016 1:51 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
>> Buffering, my boy, buffering!
>> The online gamers don't seem to have too many problems. Yeah, there
>> are outages and they shriek in fury. Our game would go on apace
>> (except for maybe no spots) but there would be a backlog (see, the log
>> will never die) to upload once service is restored. And I'm sure
>> completely off-line entries would be acceptable.
>> We just need to start moving in this direction to see what problems
>> arise.
>> 73, Wardster
>> On 11/10/2016 2:32 PM, Jeff Stai wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:hwardsil at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> I would prefer in the long term that QSOs are submitted in real-time
>>> As great as that sounds, that will be a long time coming I expect and
>>> hope, considering how often my internet goes down...
>>> 73 jeff wk6i
>>> -- 
>>> Jeff Stai ~ wk6i.jeff at gmail.com <mailto:wk6i.jeff at gmail.com>
>>> Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
>>> Facebook ~ http://www.facebook.com/twistedoak

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list