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

[Mark Bailey]

So, now participants use the internet to confirm QSOs diring the contest?

Isn"t using e-mail or chat rooms to perform this function against the rules?  Why would using a centralized server to do the same thing be desirable?

73,

Mark



On November 11, 2016 9:21:51 AM EST, Ward Silver <hwardsil at gmail.com> wrote:
>Part of real-time QSO submission is being able to cross-check a QSO 
>relatively quickly and report back to both submitters whether it is a 
>valid QSO.  If after making a QSO with UA9CDC, I am notified later by 
>the cross-check service that the QSO was invalid because of a mistake
>by 
>me or a mistake by Igor, I can go back and make another attempt at a 
>valid QSO.  Because there is no post-event log, there needs to be no 
>post-event penalty because the error can be corrected during the
>contest 
>with another contact, just like any other sport.  The QSO either counts
>
>or it doesn't.  Penalties are only necessary in today's contests
>because 
>of the post-event log being what is judged.  Getting rid of the 
>post-event log solves a lot of judging and behavioral problems.
>
>Obviously, there is a lot of distance between where we are today with 
>post-event logs being cross-checked after the event and real-time 
>contest QSO validation but as you can see from ClubLog and DXA, the 
>basic structures exist on a smaller scale and longer timeline.  Imagine
>
>a "blank" Contest-LOTW being established before each contest,
>configured 
>to match calls, date/time, band, and exchange.  Contest QSOs are signed
>
>and delivered to the Contest-LOTW server just as they are now for 
>ordinary day-to-day QSOs to LOTW.  In fact, people are automatically 
>sending day-to-day QSOs one-by-one to LOTW as they are made, under the 
>control of TQSL and their general-purpose logging software.  It's 
>happening now and there are automated reporting tools to extract
>reports 
>from LOTW as to what contacts have been validated, construct a scoring 
>leaderboard, etc.
>
>All the pieces exist today.  What is needed is integration and enough 
>server horsepower to handle the load - the cloud is cheap and even a 
>full-blown amateur radio contest is not really all that much data 
>compared to a commercial application.  Bandwidth requirements on the 
>submitter end are minimal.  Simple Matter of Programming :-)
>
>73, Ward N0AX
>
>On 11/10/2016 5:48 PM, Igor Sokolov wrote:
>> Ward,
>> Very interesting. But this approach begs  the question: If 
>> prescription finally got wrong (name of the medicine or dosage) who's
>
>> fault is it? Transmitter or receiver? Should not both sides be
>penalized?
>>
>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>>
>> ----- Исходное сообщение ----- От: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil at gmail.com>
>> Кому: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Отправлено: 10 ноября 2016 г. 21:18
>> Тема: Re: [CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)
>>
>>
>>> > If it wasn't a penmanship contest then, why is it a typing contest
>
>>> now?
>>>
>>> At the risk of setting off a "plastic owl pointing true north by 
>>> remote control" thread...
>>>
>>> Why is it that we have contests at all?  It is to practice our 
>>> ability to communicate and to reward effectiveness - in whatever
>form 
>>> that takes. Part of it is knowing when the bands are open and 
>>> closed.  Part of it is assembling a station that works well.  Part
>of 
>>> it is having good operating technique.  And part of it is accurately
>
>>> transcribing the exchanged information into whatever format is
>required.
>>>
>>> We are fond of claiming that contesting makes us good public service
>
>>> operators and all that back-patting we do for ourselves.  Imagine we
>
>>> are relaying orders for prescription medicines needed in a disaster 
>>> area.  Is a typo in "hydrochlorothiazide" acceptable because we were
>
>>> in a hurry? ("Can you give me that phonetically before the band 
>>> closes?") Is mistakenly changing a dosage of 50 mg to 500 mg OK 
>>> because we hit 0 twice? ("Whoa - how did that huge hairy bat get in 
>>> here?")  Of course not...we would recognize that as an error and we 
>>> should do so when N0AX gets changed to N0XA.  Each unforced error 
>>> needs to produce negative feedback so we will work to lower our
>error 
>>> rate.  The CQ WW introduction of penalties for errors was exactly
>the 
>>> right remedy for sloppy operating because it provides both carrot
>and 
>>> stick to operate at a rate no faster than what optimizes effective 
>>> operating.  Nothing is error-free but a three-QSO penalty has a way 
>>> of focusing the mind.
>>>
>>> At any rate (so to speak), anything noted during the period of 
>>> competition is fair game for log correction.  I would prefer in the 
>>> long term that QSOs are submitted in real-time and verified shortly 
>>> thereafter so that this whole notion of "log" goes away along with 
>>> all the misbehavior and delays it engenders, but in the mean time, 
>>> transcription into the submitted record of competition is as much a 
>>> part of the contest as transmitting the information in the first
>place.
>>>
>>> 73, Ward N0AX
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.