Sounds like heaven!
Julius Fazekas
N2WN
Tennessee Contest Group
TnQP http://www.tnqp.org/
Elecraft K2/100 #3311
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net> wrote:
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830 postings
> To: "'reflector cq-contest'" <CQ-Contest@Contesting.COM>
> Date: Friday, September 5, 2008, 8:38 PM
> But (at least for the forseeable future) you won't get
> everyone to post
> scores in realtime.
>
> Not everyone has or can get a high speed Internet
> connection.
>
> For example, suppose I somehow glom onto a hunting cabin up
> in Volwinkle PA,
> the upper corner of Clarion County, near the border with
> Forest County?
> Very quiet from an RF standpoint. But no dependable cell
> phone coverage.
> No Internet connections. No telephone. No packet network
> access on VHF.
> (And if you don't believe that places like this exist,
> talk with N3SBF &
> KB3GMN, because this is exactly where there cabin is
> located, and my club
> has operated in the Pa QSO Party from there).
>
> How could I possibly participate in a real time scoring
> system?
>
> Would you disqualify my log because the computer tells you
> that my home
> address has Internet, regardless of where I operated from?
>
> Would I have to apply for an "exemption?" And
> what if someone with a stick
> up his, er, ah, someone who's just plain doesn't
> care decides not to grant
> it to me?
>
> Sorry. We're just not ready for Universal "Real
> Time" Scoring yet. IMHO,
> YMMV.
>
> 73
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of
> David Robbins
> K1TTT
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:34 PM
> To: 'reflector cq-contest'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios - 3830
> postings
>
>
> I would rather have everyone post scores in real time...
> isn't that what I
> said? If everyone posted in real time then the 3830 debate
> would be moot
> since all the scores would be collected automatically by
> the real time
> scoreboard and you would know at the end of the contest who
> won (assuming
> log checking doesn't shift order of finish of course).
>
>
> 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 w1md@cfl.rr.com
> > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 20:10
> > To: reflector cq-contest
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Best & worst scenarios -
> 3830 postings
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|