|
1-4 of 4 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
CQ WW Committee Seeks Input on Real Time Scoreboar
|
Reply
|
|
by N3OYA on October 22, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First, I must admit that I am by no means a "big gun" contester. I haven't been participating in radiosport very long at all, and such radiosport as I seek is relaxed with my meager station.
Second, allow me to thank you for seeking comment in this manner. I am glad you're seeking a broad base of input.
Third, my comments. =)
I think you're right on the money. Analysis of realtime information in this manner by its very nature assists the contest operator in exactly the same manner as PacketCluster nodes. One can see at a glance who's on what frequency in what location. I see no ethical difference in the technologies. Indeed, one need only look at the definition of the word:
as�sist (-sst)
v. as�sist�ed, as�sist�ing, as�sists
v. tr. - To give help or support to, especially as a subordinate or supplement; aid.
v. intr. - To give aid or support.
n. An act of giving aid; help.[1]
Information technology is a Pandora's Box for radiosport. The line which must be drawn is by its very nature artificial; knowing that, the line must still be drawn. But where to draw it?
Many of the extant rules have been in place since the beginning of contesting. Others - like the Assisted rules - were enacted to address perceived inconsistencies or horribly-exploited gaps in rules coverage. Even with the painful process of devising and instituting these rules, are they not merely a finger in the dike?
For example, there's more realtime information available than spots and logs. What about propagation? Accessing that information is child's play today, where it was the realm of wizardry when contests like CQWW were devised. Will the rules committees add use of that information to the Assisted category? What about online or disc-based callsign databases? Didn't get N3OYA's location for the exchange? Bring up QRZ.com and punch in the callsign.
This is where we diverge from rules adherence to ethics. I have never seen a rule, per se, which prohibits the function last described; it is considered too obviously unseemly to note it in contest rules. But it's too easy a method to imagine that operators don't use it. It all comes down to ethics.
It is unlikely that rules committees can enforce ethical radiosport operating. Ethics come from a different source than contest rulebooks. But there's a very clear line to be drawn here. If you use information technology which is definitely connected to the contest in which you are participating, in real time and during the contest itself, you're operating Assisted, because of the very definition of the word "assistance." Ethically, it's as plain as the nose on your face.
73 and have fun wading through this morass!
Bob N3OYA
[1] assist. The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
|
| |
|
CQ WW Committee Seeks Input on Real Time Scoreboar
|
Reply
|
|
by VE9NC on October 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can see the possibilities. Yes that would be quite interesting but it would require a change in software I assume or incorporation of existing software to input into the system. However in terms of band openings and what is happening it would certainly be interesting to watch. I am not exactly a big gun but I do contest every chance I get. And it would increase the score somewhat for the weaker stations by indicating where people and openings are located.
Paul
|
| |
|
CQ WW Committee Seeks Input on Real Time Scoreboar
|
Reply
|
|
by VE6CNU on October 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm glad you are soliciting comments on the live scoring issue for contesting. For the CQ WW DX contest, it must be determined as to what the actual goals are, before the question of live scoring can be settled. If you look at the World Amateur Radio Contest (the latest in Brazil), they had live scoring but with anonymous station call signs. This was to avoid favoritism by home countries contacting their own people. The goal in this contest is to determine the best operators, given all stations operate in close proximity to each other and with identical equipment.
I would suggest that the goals of the CQ WW DX contest are different than the above-mentioned contest, and probably most other contests too. Let's look at just some of the major issues facing this contest today:
First of all, everyone knows that there are certain places in the world that optimize HF propagation conditions, and others that minimize it. Secondly, the population density and distribution of ham radio operators throughout the world is not uniform, which again leads to a disparity in potential scores. Third, the actual time zone in which one lives can have an impact on one's score - especially during a sunspot cycle minimum, where certain bands may only be open for a few hours on a given day. Fourth, ever-increasing restrictions on antenna height and transmitted power as imposed by municipalities, local governments, etc. can cause additional inequalities in scoring potential in that 100 watts at one location forced to use a "stealth dipole" is unequal to 100 watts from a 6 element yagi on a 72' tower, with gain factor of 5 or 6. Finally, the temptation to use spotting clusters has encouraged some (how many?) contesters to cheat, as many assume that by not doing so they are putting themselves at a disadvantage to those who do (and don't declare they are operating assisted). I'm sure there are more issues that could be added (like SO2R), but the point is that many contesters and would-be contesters are getting disillusioned or frustrated with the way the contests are scored. I'm afraid that by adding real-time scoring, this would only exacerbate the problem.
I got into contesting about 18 months ago and have enjoyed it for two reasons: 1) It pushes me to continually improve my station, and 2) It pushes me to become a better operator. I realized at the start that there was zero hope of winning any of the major contests from Alberta. This gets back to the inequalities mentioned above. By having real-time scoring available I probably would drop out from contesting altogether. I find the current contests that require an exchange of serial number to be deflating enough! The only way I could see real-time scoring as a viable option would be to list the leaders in each category anonymously. Even then I would suggest that we address the larger issues first.
My main concern (goal) is that we encourage more hams to get into the sport, not fewer. When a "big gun" station gets on in the Caribbean or Morocco and runs for 48 hours, what chance has a station from North Dakota, even with 1KW, when he is forced to search and pounce for many of his QSOs? And lumping Alberta with Ontario as Zone 4 shows a total lack of understanding of propagation patterns. In terms of distance, it is equivalent to lumping Madrid with Moscow or Angola (West Africa) with Madagascar.
I realize this is not the forum to debate all the issues of world-wide contesting. Nor is it easy for people to accept change. Yet, adding real-time scoring to the list of existing problems would only serve to make the situation worse. Would the part-time contester who only has a few hours to operate benefit? Clearly not. Would the "big gun" stations benefit? It is difficult to see how. And would the majority of fairly serious contesters benefit? Perhaps if a club station knew that it's cross-town rival was slightly ahead or behind, it would try harder. But what would this mean? Could they erect a new antenna or improve operating procedures significantly in the waning hours of the contest? I doubt it.
In summary, there is no doubt that the technology exists to allow for real-time scoring of contests over the internet. In my opinion, it is a technology in search of a reason to exist - and that reason has yet to be discovered. There are other, more critical issues which should be addressed ahead of this one so that we can encourage contesters to stay with the sport and motivate new people to take it up. I would suggest that the first step in the right direction would be to keep the existing awards in place, but invent a parallel set of awards (the "equivalency awards") that compensate for location, antenna type and height, power, HF conditions, rig type (computer control or not), hours of operation, etc. In this way the guy running 100 watts into a stealth dipole in Helena, Montana could have the same chance of "winning" the event as K3LR. The statistics are available from dozens of contests to show us how to do this. The emphasis would return to operating techniques and a greater sense of anticipation as everyone could legitimately feel like they are "in the race". There certainly are enough sponsors for additional awards, so this is not a problem. I would be glad to help you work on this or other contest-related issues and I'm sure others would follow.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forums, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forums Manager.
|
