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

Fri Nov 11 12:50:37 EST 2016

 Good point!

I think the answer is... hmmm, no, wait, that would require more changes to the rules to carve out exceptions...

IMHO, It's one thing if the "central server" is storing the real-time data for scoring purposes, but is NOT relaying it back to the participants during the contest.

But it's another thing if the "central server" is letting the participants know, in real time, whether or not they've had a "good" contact.  And more so if the "central server" informs them of what the error is.

In other words, it's not much of a step to go from "QSO entered"  to "QSO Valid/Invalid" to "QSO Invalid Wrong Zone" to "QSO Invalid W3WN ZONE 5 not ZONE 9".  At that last point, we're in the realm of "22 bang bang shotgun rifle shots" or "33 triplets triplets triplets" that the "relay" stations of certain infamous frequencies use for "confirmations".  

(Oh, and "central server" would probably be a cluster somewhere in the Cloud, as opposed to a physical server or server farm located within the physical control of the contest committee in question)

73, ron w3wn

On 11/11/16, Mark Bailey wrote:

So, now participants use the internet to confirm QSOs during 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
>>
>> ----- ???????????????? ?????????????????? ----- ????: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil at gmail.com>
>> ????????: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> ????????????????????: 10 ???????????? 2016 ??. 21:18
>> ????????: 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.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest