Hmmm...
So "you" would rather stay in the dark ie. competitors positions in real time
vs. having an unofficial, "voluntary", after contest posting that should be
madatory? At least for the participants in the box?
This whole topic is assinine...
SPOTS...SPOTS...SPOTS...my radio for some SPOTS!!!
W1MD
---- David Robbins K1TTT <k1ttt@arrl.net> wrote:
> I feel one of the things many operators are missing is the knowledge of how
> they are doing vs the competition in real time. Just about every other
> sport or game has some kind of real time comparison to the competition, now
> we do! It makes those of us with adhd more interested because we get
> instant feedback on how we are doing, waiting days, weeks, or months to see
> claimed or final results is just way too long!
>
>
> David Robbins K1TTT
> e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Beckwith [mailto:n5ot@n5ot.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 13:35
> > To: k1ttt@arrl.net
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> >
> > Dave, you're saying these things can't be done in any other way? I don't
> > like real time score posting because I think one of the fundamentals of
> > our
> > game is the mystery of not knowing how the competitors are doing. That
> > would be lost if real time scoring were implemented.
> >
> > (I'm emailing privately at the moment to dodge bullets).
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
> > To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:20 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> >
> >
> > > Of course the next logical step is to require real time score posting
> > > during
> > > the contest, that way you could monitor the operation to be sure m/s
> > > stations only have one signal on the band at a time, in addition to
> > making
> > > sure s/o's observe off times and all sorts of other things!
> > >
> > >
> > > David Robbins K1TTT
> > > e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> > > web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> > > AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> > >> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN
> > >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 23:16
> > >> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> > >>
> > >> OK. Let me see if I understand this.
> > >>
> > >> Mark, buried down there in the reply, you state:
> > >> "Therefore, it should be safe to assume the final standings should be
> > >> pretty
> > >> accurately reflected in the perliminary listings."
> > >>
> > >> Right there is the logical fallacy. It is not safe to assume anything.
> > >>
> > >> Your argument claims that it is an unfair surprise to see a high score
> > >> not
> > >> posted on the 3830 reflector. You state this is "highly suspicious."
> > >> But
> > >> why?
> > >>
> > >> Because someone has failed your expectations by not posting to a
> > >> voluntary
> > >> and unofficial source?
> > >>
> > >> Because you have assumed, that dangerous word, that all top contesters
> > >> must
> > >> post to it, and that it becomes a de facto mandate to do so?
> > >>
> > >> And you assert that it is better that everyone be forced to post?
> > >> Otherwise
> > >> they automatically open themselves up to accusations of cheating?
> > (Which
> > >> is
> > >> what category changes and log massaging implies)
> > >>
> > >> Your automatic distrust saddens me. Frankly, as a long time contester
> > >> (albeit not now and probably never a big gun), your lack of faith in
> > your
> > >> fellow contesters seems unreasonable at the very least.
> > >>
> > >> What has caused you to automatically distrust me (and others)? Because
> > >> we
> > >> sometimes neglect to (or choose not to, for whatever reason) post to a
> > >> voluntary system?
> > >>
> > >> How does creating and spreading distrust benefit contesters and
> > constest
> > >> sponsors as a whole?
> > >> -------------
> > >> Now, if you can convince a contest sponsor to post on a web site the
> > >> preliminary submitted scores, and that this is clearly spelled out in
> > the
> > >> rules ahead of time, I have no problem. You know this up front, you
> > know
> > >> this before you send in your log. As Mike N3LI has pointed out
> > >> previously,
> > >> there is at least one contest (the Pa QSO Party) that does just this.
> > >> This
> > >> may even give some participants in rare(r) counties and sections
> > >> incentive
> > >> to post -- if they see someone else with a lower score submitting, and
> > >> realize they can beat it, they just might. Keep in mind these
> > important
> > >> distinctions: It is clearly stated in the rules that this will happen;
> > >> No
> > >> surprises. And it was done by the contest sponsor on their own web
> > site,
> > >> not making unwarranted use of a 3rd party voluntary system.
> > >>
> > >> The model to accomplish this is right there in front of you.
> > >>
> > >> But rather than use this example (one of many, but I won't belabor the
> > >> point), you keep hammering away that we should be forced to use a
> > >> voluntary
> > >> system.
> > >>
> > >> Forced to use a voluntary system.
> > >>
> > >> That's not just a perversion of English. That's the fallacy in your
> > >> argument.
> > >>
> > >> The problem is not the 3830 Reflector, or it's voluntary use by contest
> > >> participants. The problem is that the contest sponsors have not yet
> > >> taken
> > >> advantage of existing technology to automatically post to web site a
> > >> preliminary score based on the unchecked submitted log.
> > >>
> > >> That's right. Once the Cabrillo or ADIF file is submitted to the
> > contest
> > >> robot, it should be childs play to process the log, compute a
> > preliminary
> > >> score, and create an entry in a database for display on the web site.
> > >>
> > >> Will this handle paper logs? No. Neither does 3830. So it's not
> > >> perfect.
> > >> But it's a start.
> > >>
> > >> So, why don't we quit carping about misuse of a voluntary system, and
> > >> convince the contest sponsors that there's a better way?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > >> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Mark Beckwith
> > >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:31 AM
> > >> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Posting the preliminary scores is a service to our participants. They
> > >> > see their entry, and they see we have some idea of what their score
> > >> > might be.
> > >>
> > >> I think it's reasonable to say they also notice where they placed in
> > >> respect
> > >> to everyone else near them. I know I do. Call me competitive. It's
> > >> also
> > >> reasonable to wonder why the order changes between the preliminary and
> > >> final
> > >> listings. This conversation is all about that.
> > >>
> > >> > But there is a reason they are called preliminary. Scores get
> > changed.
> > >> > And anyone who relies on the preliminary score as what their final
> > >> > score is might very well be disappointed.
> > >>
> > >> In the best case, the only reason to be disapppointed would be to be
> > >> disappointed in oneself. The only reason your score should fall is
> > that
> > >> either your copying or your logging were sufficiently erroneous to
> > cause
> > >> your score to slip down past some other operators who copied/logged
> > more
> > >> accurately than you did.
> > >>
> > >> That's a perfect world.
> > >>
> > >> In the real world, it is possible to slip down through no fault of
> > one's
> > >> copying or logging accuracy, but the stated goal of the log checkers,
> > who
> > >> are the first to say the process is not perfect, is that the goal is to
> > >> have
> > >> a system sufficiently good enough so that this does not happen. I
> > >> personally have yet to hear of a contender who has slipped a position
> > >> between "claimed" and "final" that can be attributed to the removal of
> > >> legitimate, accurately copied contacts which should not have been
> > >> removed.
> > >> Some people complain about having good QSOs removed, but did it change
> > >> the
> > >> order of the box? I don't think it does.
> > >>
> > >> Therefore, it should be safe to assume the final standings should be
> > >> pretty
> > >> accurately reflected in the perliminary listings.
> > >>
> > >> Therefore, it should be safe to assume the preliminary listings should
> > be
> > >> able to be counted on as a pretty good idea of how you're going to
> > >> finish.
> > >> If you move up in the standings, you get an extra pat on the back for
> > >> being
> > >> more accurate than the guy above you was, and the guy who slipped knows
> > >> he
> > >> has some work to do in the accuracy/logging department.
> > >>
> > >> The introduction of a new call to the box in the finals is rightly
> > highly
> > >> suspicious and it's better for everyone when that does not happen. Did
> > >> he
> > >> change categories? Did he massage his log? Did the sponsor accept his
> > >> log
> > >> after the deadline?
> > >>
> > >> That's not a witch hunt. That's due dilligence. It's also easily
> > >> avoided
> > >> which is good for everyone. Which is what this is about.
> > >>
> > >> Mark, N5OT
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> > >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> > >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG.
> > > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date:
> > 9/4/2008
> > > 6:57 AM
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|