[VHFcontesting] Sports vs. Radiosports

[jon jones]

Ken is right that WRTC "real-time" scoring is a much different situation 
with referees on site at each WRTC station as opposed to "home stations 
linked to some central server via the Internet." I believe Ev's proposal 
could also exclude rovers, portables, DX stations and others who are not 
connected to the Internet while operating the contest.

Additionally as Ken notes

>"Any real-time
system will have to address issues like whether the qso and mult totals
received for K5TR are really being sent by K5TR and not someone else.
Will it become fashionable to overstate your progress in the contest
to intimidate your opponents?  Will it become fashionable to understate
your progress in order to lull them into complacency?"

>"Forming a small committee of Amateur radio young 'uns who also on-line 
>game to provide input as to how on-line game sites deal with these issues 
>would be in order." - W2EV


On-line PC gaming servers can be and are often "hacked." Players  commonly 
use "cheats"  to get the advantage while playing on-line games. In fact 
there is a program called "punk buster" used to combat cheats. This is a 
significant problem with on-line gaming and amateur radio contesting 
"on-line" would have to consider and address potential "cheats."

- Jon N0JK



>From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
>Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Sports vs. Radiosports
>To: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
>Message-ID: <20040907024112.GB24893 at kenharker.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 12:02:18PM -0400, Ev Tupis wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't it be interesting to expand on the WRTC 2002 system of 
>real-time
> > score reporting (thanks to an ARRL staffer who pointed me to that link,
> > btw)?
>
>The WRTC real-time scoe reporting was done by the referees at each contest
>station.  They manually sent in their team's numbers as an SMS text message
>on a cell phone once an hour, which was automatically updated on a web site
>(to which the competitors had no access during the contest.)  One of the
>glitches in this system was that one of the teams using CT had 
>misconfigured
>their logging software, and the resulting claimed score that their referee
>was sending in was much higher than it really should have been.
>
>The challenges to a system of real-time scoring for most contests (not
>just those with referees at each station) are:
>
>(a) software support to automatically connect to some central server,
>(b) running and supporting some central server for this purpose,
>(c) managing all the ways that the system will be abused (malicious score
>     posts, erroneous score posts, attempts to use it as a spotting system,
>     attempts to take it down, etc.)
>(d) figuring out how to deal with stations that will never have any kind
>     of real-time network connection during the contest - rovers, SO/P
>     stations, mountaintop M/Us, etc.
>
> > Then let's look at expanding Cabrillo to include pertinent information 
>so
> > that you don't HAVE to ask.  Here's where VHF is different than HF
> > contesting. Enhance Cabrillo to include the following on a band-by-band
> > basis:
> >
> > 1. RF Output
> > 2. Antenna Gain
> > 3. Antenna Height (above ground)
> > 4. Height Above Mean Sea Level (not of the antenna, but of the ground it 
>is
> > on)
> > 5. Height AAT
> > 6. Operator Experience (count the number of contests they've entered)
>
>Aside from the fact that most HF contesters have the same power output 
>level
>on each of the six HF contest bands, none of the rest of that is uniquely
>of interest to VHFers.  Almost all HF contest stations have different
>antennas on different bands (even the tribander and wires class stations) 
>and
>antenna height matters for HF (albeit in some different ways) as much as it
>does for UHF.
>
>Most contesters who submit Cabrillo logs today do not even submit SOAPBOX
>comments, so getting the majority to volunteer detailed band-by-band
>station descriptions will be challenging - probably the same people who
>write SOAPBOX comments will be the ones who describe their station.
>
>You could make it compulsory, but that would just make the log submission
>process that much more work, inviting the less committed to put it off and
>maybe never find the time to submit their log at all.
>
> > Make that information publicly available.  For that matter, make the 
>logs
> > publicly available (GASP!).  Golfers score cards are available for
> > scrutiny! What's the big deal?
>
>The logs should be publically available (after the submission deadline for
>the particular contest, of course.)  You might get push-back from DXers,
>though - publishing log details could invite unethical practices among
>DXers looking to claim QSOs they never made, but look to have made (perhaps
>because of busted callsigns.)
>
>--
>Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
>kenharker at kenharker.com
>http://www.kenharker.com/