Phil et al,
Can of worms or what. Ultimately I can only adjudicate on the information
received in the logs. These are what the contest will be adjudicated on and
nothing else. Now having said that, where I feel there is an issue significant
enough to warrant investigation, then I will call for additional data.
Now as I felt there was a significant issue, I released the results in draft
form as automatically adjudicated by the rules. The result of this is that I
have had to introduce a compromise in a move similar to Neville Chamberlain to
get peace in our time.
You may not be aware that to run the automatic adjudication process on a test
of this nature takes a powerful PC, and mine is a top spec gaming rig (other
hobby off topic hi hi) an hour to run through. So far I have run the process 8
times on the 2015 results. The 2014 set I have run through over 30 times. Each
time reveals another issue with one or more logs which then get sidelined as
they simply fail the required data in them – the exchange! Remember the 2014
set didn’t go through the robot, so I have to sort them. These hours all add
up. So far I think it is fair to say I have spent about 3 woman-weeks (500+
hours) on the 2014 and only now getting to the point where I can really get
stuck into the manual side. 700+ logs takes a lot of wading through and thank
goodness I have a proper database to help.
Now you will find errors such as you have highlighted Phil, and of course you
loose the points probably unfairly. You always did, just these days, with the
ability to provide entrants with their errors and information which hitherto
was not done or even possible, you can raise the issue. Information has its
uses, UBNs can and do cause problems. Too much information sometimes is to the
detriment of the enjoyment of the hobby. On the other hand it should help guide
the recipient to better operation and understanding of how not to loose points.
It is clear to me that the exchange, for that is what adds spice to a test –
599 001 isn’t exactly a test of accuracy – needs to be revised, and it will be.
2016 will see a new exchange requirement introduced. Once that will not rely on
computer generation, one that loggers will cope with, one that will make you
check it is put in your log properly. Speed is not to be the thing that wins a
test, it will be a combination of speed & accuracy.
Simone – M0BOX
BARTG Contest Manageress
From: Phil Cooper [mailto:pcooper@guernsey.net]
Sent: 09 April 2015 18:13
To: 'SIMONE WILSON'; 'Michael Therrien'
Cc: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: RE: BARTG HF Contest 2015 Preliminary Results
Hello Simone and the group,
As you said, as contest manager, you have the choice, which is as it should be.
However, there is another point of view….
If you are a contester, casual or serious, and you don’t know how to set up
your logging software correctly, then I believe you should be penalised.
If you think I have copied a time wrongly, then it’s reasonable for me to be
penalised.
However, if I copied it correctly, but the sender logged it incorrectly, I
should not be penalised.
I know Writelog includes the program name in the Cabrillo header, and I assume
that N1MM does the same, but maybe you can clarify this?
I know that if I entered the wrong category, I would be penalised, and I don’t
really see this as different.
Looking at my original RBN, I see that I have a few where the time is off by
one or two minutes, so I assume these will now be corrected.
However, I have a few where the time is so far off as to be questionable.
One is with G3TTJ, where I copied 1242, but the RBN says he sent 1016. I simply
don’t believe that is correct.
Another is with GI4SNA, where I clearly received 14:24 which was sent twice,
but the RBN shows I should have logged 1509.
I also have a couple of NIL’s, including WW4LL, whose exchange was clear to me,
as was my call. Also, there were SQ9DDA and YO7CVL, both of whom called ME, so
I am not sure why the NIL.
This is NOT a complaint, but simply to point out some potential adjudication
issues.
Simone, I have the text dump from MMTTY to back this up, should you wish to see
it.
Obviously, there needs to be a rethink on how the rules are interpreted, and
maybe someone with some N1MM experience can issue some guidelines on how to
correctly set the time macro?
73
Phil GU0SUP
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|