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

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

 Whether I personally would be "OK" with it is actually irrelevant.  I'm certainly not a contesting "big gun", I fall somewhere between "little pistol" and "squirt gun" most of the time.  (Which probably explains why a lot of people think I'm all wet, but I digress)


Ahem.



 Mike, if you want to start a brand new contest, more power to you.  I wish you well, I really do.


You are welcome, obviously, as the contest creator to design the rules how you see fit.


Once you have done so (with appropriate input from others and the usual polishing and tweaking), and scheduled the event, I and many others will then decide if we wish to participate, and if so, to what degree.


Beyond that -- I can't give you commitment or even a blessing.  And I'm sure many others will feel the same way.  The devil, as they say, is in the details, and there are obviously no details yet.  


In general, if the "real time" requirements do not appear too be onerous, and I am available for the time period selected, yeah, I'd probably give it a shot.  But if they are too much of a pain, or life gets in the way and I'm not around, well, it's nothing personal.


So put together your proposal, then we'll talk.


7e, ron w3wn

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

I would assume that you would be ok with a new contest or contests that 
make this requirement?

Online gaming deals with this all the time. If you are not online you 
are not in the game. It is just part of the deal.

Trying to force this on CQ WW or ARRL DX would probably not go over well.

Ward did talk about about this in his initial post allowing logs to be 
saved and then transmitted after or once the internet comes back up. 
All these points need to be discussed.

W0MU



On 11/11/2016 8:30 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> Good point.
>
>
> Imagine a station with a top score in the category being DQ'd for failing to run real-time scoring, or for failing to post their score within 30 minutes of the contest ending...
>
>
> All because some yahoo with a backhoe accidentally severed the fiber or telephone cables providing internet service to an area (or an auto accident taking out a poll, or a major snowstorm caused issues, and so forth) and the service wasn't restored until a day or three later.
>
>
> Look, I have no problem with real-time scoring, for those who choose to participate in it. If that's your thing, more power to you. But imposing it as mandatory on everyone, just because the technology exists? That's another story.
>
>
> 73, ron w3wn
> 
>
> On 11/11/16, ve4xt at mymts.net wrote:
>
> The idea real-time logging will eliminate cheating is somewhat overstated, I think.
>
> Cheaters gonna cheat. They'll just find another way.
>
> If you really want to "sell" real-time scoring, focusing on the negative isn't the way.
>
> To me, the real benefit is the introduction of immediacy to the results. Gamers know how they're doing all through the competition. We, really, don't know until six months later. That latency is a negative when trying to recruit new blood in the age of immediate results.
>
> But, and this is huge, a significant part of contesting are the folks who operate off the grid, as it were. I'm working on a station at the cottage, where we don't have Internet. Others activate field-day style for some contests, and the best DX-pedition locations have zero infrastructure.
>
> You going to tell a future Heard Island we don't want you in WW?
>
> I'd love to see a real-time overlay for contests, but wouldn't want to see real-time scoring become mandatory. It's a mistake to base policy on the false assumption everyone operates under the same conditions.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Nov 11, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net> 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