In a message dated 97-10-31 02:52:22 EST, Tom, K5RC wrote:
<< and the most creative use of
"super-check partial." >>
I never miss an opportunity to bring this up as a topic of discussion. I
question the use of "super-check partial" as a tool for contesting. Lets
face it, in CQWW, all you have to do (in 95% of the cases) is copy the
callsign...the zone and mult are implicit in the call! So essentially, all
the CQWW contest wants you to do is to COPY THE CALL!
Unless you are an outright cheater, the only way that your score goes down is
by the identification of Unique, U+1, BAD, or NOT-IN-LOG callsigns. The
current thinking by CQWW guys is that (except for real uniques) these are
mostly a product of mis-copied calls....a problem with the operator accuracy
(intended or not). So the implication is that your score is judged, in large
part, by, "how well YOU copy the callsigns!"
Where does the use of a database fit into this scheme? IMHO, IT DOESN'T!
There is NO justification for using it. You are using a form of artificial
intellegence, an expert system, if you will, to DO THE WORK FOR YOU. When
others argue that it, "only helps me confirm what I know I heard," I just can
NOT accept that. Can't you tell BY YOUR SELF that you copied the call or
not?
INPUT FROM OTHERS: I have made many inquiries to the TOP guys about the use
of databases (like super-check partial). I am SHOCKED by what I hear.
Namely, that they only use it because, "the other guys are using it." One
rather famous guy even told that he thought it was a CRUTCH and ANTI-SKILL,
but he would "be damned if others were going to use it and he wouldn't." He
went on to say that not only would he continue to use it, but that he would,
"be the best at using it of any other op." All that because of a DATABASE
GAP (sounds like the cold war!).
Isn't relying on "super-check partial" or other such databases, the same as
NOT copying the call yourself? And if you don't copy the call (ALL of the
call), then there was NO QSO.
Another famous contester (in the near East) told me that he only uses a
database to CONFIRM what he copied. As an example, he commented on how HARD
it was to copy calls from Europe and USA on 160, and the use of such a system
helped him, but ONLY TO CONFIRM, what he puts in the log. Is this
acceptable? Is this BELIEVABLE?
If the general consensus amoung the "TOP ENTRANTS" is that they only use it
cuz the competition is using it, perhaps it is time that these TOP ENTRANTS
speak up in PUBLIC, rather than PRIVATELY to me, and come to an agreement
that "super-check partial" and the use of databases has no place in
contesting.
I believe that there is even at least one piece of software out there that
will identify UNIQUES and U+1 calls for you. So what do you do when it
identifies such a call? Do you CHANGE the call after the contest (which is a
violation)? Does this cause you to enter onto the slippery-slope and make
the violation because each qso is just so important? It is almost
ENTRAPMENT! If you FIND a potential error, are you tempted to make the
change? If you can't get the call after numerous attempts, do you GET HELP
from S-C-Partial and GUESS and then see if your GUESS was okay? Is that
COPYING? Is that testing your skill against the skill of others?
I hope that I have raised some issues that will make all contesters think
about the use of "super-check partial" and other databases. Is this really a
contest "skill" that you want to "develop?"
As always, I am open to opposing views and look forward to all comments.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily
represent the view of any group, organization, or contest committee that I
may be associated with.
de Doug KR2Q
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|