Speak for yourself. I'm not old, just experienced! <g>
Seriously, though...
Is your goal to make contesting, or more precisely real-time contesting, more
akin to online gaming? The allure of online gaming is more than just instant
scoring, there is a level of interaction involved there as well. Online gaming
and RPG is a very nice thing for those who are interested... but not everyone
is interested.
Regardless, you seem to be proposing some massive changes or even overhaul in
how contests would be operated. I can not even begin to fathom most of the
unforseen consequences, and I can think of quite a few, but I think it's safe
to say that this concept would be a fundamental change.
And there is no guarantee that this change would, in and of itself, bring in
'new blood' to contesting. Which is what you're after. Shouldn't we be a
little more certain of the sought after results, before we blindly and
irrevocably make these changes?
I'm not saying "no". I am saying "not yet". IMHO.
Perhaps what we need, first, is a "proof of concept". Can you convince a
large-enough 'sample size' of contesters to demonstrate, during an upcoming
contest, how this would work? That the servers can, indeed, handle it? (I
know it's been assumed that they will, but do we actually know? Can you
demonstrate how scoring would be affected by those that (for whatever reason)
operate in the contest but choose not to participate in real-time scoring? How
do you allow for stations, specifically major players, that either lose
internet access due to no fault of their own, or do not have it available in
the first place?
Let's see some real examples of this. Then we can talk. Otherwise, this is
all theory.
And let's be honest. A fundamental overhaul like this will cause at least some
contest operators to cut back or even not operate a given event. Will the
alleged number of new operators that these changes might attract offset those
losses?
73, ron w3wn
On 11/11/16, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
The rush? Looked in the mirror lately :) We are a bunch of old
farts.... Seriously there is no real rush.
The allure of online gaming is that results are instant. You don't play
a shoot em up match and then wait to see who won a month or a year later.
Realtime scoring, judging etc might...or might not be the ticket to lure
more of the younger generations to contesting and the hobby.
We are working contests with the same archaic rules and systems for lots
and lots of years. People give me pretty strange looks when I say yeah
I talked to people all over the world in a contest and I will know the
results a year from now. What other sporting event does that happen?
None. We even expect tot know the results of our elections hours after
the polling places close.
People don't like change. This may never fly but if we never try we
will never know.
W0MU
On 11/11/2016 5:26 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN 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@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:hwardsil@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@gmail.com <mailto:wk6i.jeff@gmail.com>
>>> Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
>>> Facebook ~ http://www.facebook.com/twistedoak
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|