Apart from the fact that the MT allowed this situation to happen in the first place and the proposed change will cause an upset to some.
I like this idea - surely a KISS principle if ever there was one.!
Gerald G4OIG
Just as well we (MT) acknowledge we shouldnât have allowed it. But we did allow it. And now weâre going to unallow it. The rules will be the same for everyone.
Yup, ainât life a bitch.
This is putting right an error that goes right back to the beginnings of SOTA, before the time of the present MT - and it is not a proposed change!
Brian
[quote=âSQ6GIT, post:51, topic:9662â]1) link the summits in DB so the server scoring would allow just 1 score?[/quote]I suspect (based on Andyâs comments further up) that this would be a messy solution to implent in the database. Also, it would merely change the nature of the queries geterated by âone summit, multiple referencesâ activations.
[quote=âG4OIG, post:58, topic:9662â]I like this idea - surely a KISS principle if ever there was one.![/quote]To me, the âone summit, one referenceâ solution is most definitely way ahead in the KISS stakes.
[quote=âSQ6GIT, post:55, topic:9662â]What makes you think that the complaints on new problems will be âfor a short whileâ and âtheyâll be forgottenâ?[/quote]Because theyâll come, for the most part, at the time when the association changes happen. Once the changes are done and the explanations given, the situation will settle down. Thatâs how itâs worked in the past. I canât see any reason why this set of changes should be any different.
73, Rick M0LEP
Actually it was more of an accommodation than an error. At the time it seemed a sensible compromise for border summits and was the one most likely to get new associations onboard. As the thread above indicates, there may well be no perfect answer but I, for one, am happy to let the MT sort it out (and take the subsequent flak of course).
PS are there any summits on the border between North and South Korea?,
Rick, I do see the differences in both solutions, I presented before. English is not my native language, so apologies if I didnât state this clear. I mean - we all know what the MT is trying to fix and I see no-one objects this as such? Both solutions will achieve the primary target, so I see not much sense in any extended argumentation for that.
We should rather concentrate the discussion on potential ricochet for both (or more) solutions, in my view. Why donât we simply analyse this better, with an inventory of cost/benefit? Including how much manual work it needs to be done in most of associations? Why not asking Association Managers to do a quick research withing their associations and come back with it? Again, I am talking about variants of the solutions, not justification to make the change we all seem to agree now.
And finally, I agree - KISS rule most of the time pays back. I never administrated the DB, so I might be wrong, but my assumption is - apart from other arguments presented before - changing the DB server formulas by matching the double references for a summit, and allowing scoring just once per year or so - sounds to me easier than reviews by dozens of ARMâs (measuring square meters?) of AZâs in a country/association, one by one - seems to me a bit more effort consuming.
I could even step back more. Tom (M1EYP) - guess what - in my Atlas there is also one Mt. Blanc. I learnt it at primary school, and settled it up a few times later in my humble life. But we are talking about SOTA rules, and the Atlas for them is the SOTA GR handbook (Issue 1.16 2010); and guess what? Nothing mentions not to activate the same summit in more than one association. So, maybe it will be worth first stating the rule in SOTA Atlas first, just communicate the expectation first, instead of letting the dissatisfaction of not following unwritten rule for at least 4 years? I do not complain, but to understand the whole spirit took me a while, and this aspect is a vacuum in the GR as of now. Maybe it is even simpler than we all think - just to write one sentence in the GR? Without a clear statement on that, it leaves room for own interpretations.
I perceive it is always best to follow the order:
- Set the expectation/rule clearly
- Execute or resolve a problem if appears
versus:
- Expect something as granted, but undefined in the rules
- Allow the problem escalate to an elephant size, then reach out for an elephant rifle.
1 Like
I share completely the concerns of Konrad, SQ6GIT, that deleting existing SOTA-summits will produce severe complaints.
Isnât it the wrong signal to spend effort in reducing the number of SOTA summits, while the number of SOTA participants is continually increasing? Wouldnât that lead to a discouragement of the participants?
If the intended solution is now âone summit = one referenceâ, then the ancient mistake wasnât to allow that a summit can be part of several associations and therefore can have several SOTA references.
Instead, the true mistake was to arrange summits into associations. A border summit is per-se part of two or more countries and consequently part of several associations.
For my understanding the complaints were not against multiple SOTA references of a border summit, but against the high uncertainty, whether a double activation of a border summit has been performed according to the rules and whether chasers can claim there points with good feelings.
And in my humble opinion this uncertainty is caused by the relevant SOTA rule, which can be interpreted within a wide scope.
So, why not clarifying the rule for activating a border summit, instead of removing already long available SOTA summits references?
1 Like
Quite. The situation that has arisen is not good and thereâs no easy way out of it. MT is holding its hands up and accepting responsibility for this - and weâre fixing it.
There might be some disenchantment with our approach in the immediate term but the long term outcome for the programme and its participants will be the best available.
1 Like
Stefan - no summits will be removed in this process!
Stephan, no summits are being deleted, there will be no reduction in the number of SOTA summits. There will be a reduction in the number of summit reference numbers but there will be the same number of summits. This change recognises that a mountain is a single entity that should not be divided on political lines, and removes an opportunity to get something for nothing. That is all. And after all, do the rules not say that a summit can only be activated once for points in any year? If we look at the summit as a mountain rather than as a reference number, isnât rule 3.7.1.13 a contradiction?
A new issue of the rules is in preparation.
Brian
My point wasnât to raise any accusation against the MT, but to rethink whether removing the SOTA references will really solve existing problems.
Corrected: Existing SOTA-references will disappear from current associations lists.
I think the solution can be simpler if looking at it, just to update the GR first - a couple of minutes of work, and then communication rollout byt the Association Managers, plus some time margin for the participants acknowledging it.
Shall this be understood that the decision has already been made and any contributory feedback provided has very little chance to be considered, if at all?
The current rules say you can activate a summit with multiple references once per reference per year for points.
So for Naafkopf (HB/GR-338, HB0/LI-002, OE/VB-123) you can climb it once and get 3 sets of points.
-
If we change the rules so that you can only operate the summit once per year for points no matter how many references it has you get 1 set of points. The number of summits stays the same. The number of references stays the same.
-
If we delete 2 sets of references for Naafkopf you can only operate it once per year for points as there is only one reference. The number of summits stays the same. The number of references drops by 2.
With either case 1 or case 2 the activator gets the same points each year. Case 1 is difficult to implement in the database scoring code, not impossible though. Case 2 is simple, we delete some references. The number of summits is the same regardless.
Case 2 is the obvious choice as we have limited resources and we are reviewing every summit anyway to ensure the same rules are applied to all associations and that heights and locations are correct.
One country review showed that about 40 summits listed were invalid. So thatâs 40 to be deleted. The same review showed there were 75 valid summits that were not yet listed. So that association will gain 75 new summits and will end up with 35 more than now when the invalid ones go. Iâm not naming the association because I donât have the accurate figures to hand, the net gain in summits is about 35.
Where a border summit has different names and loses a reference then the name will be updated to show both names. If you know it by name you will be able to search for either name and find it even if you didnât know it was on a border and had a different name.
If only life was so simple! In fact I have spent many hours spread over months in revising the GR, going through past correspondence, posts etc finding out what parts of the GR have caused problems and how to change the wording to make the exact meaning clear. This particular problem is just one minor facet of the work.
Brian
I do agree with Stephan, DM1LE
Please, turn thinking ON
73âs Kuba
Andy, I get your point and understand the limits of the voluntary resources (as well as to Brianâs point, I can only imagine the amount of issues to be handled by the MT in the light of such a successful growth of the Programme across the Globe). I was just thinking of giving it a chance first to clearly forbid the double activation of a summit regardless number of references. Iâm quite sure that if communicated well, by Pareto rule most of the cases people will obey, and any margins will be caught by the community itself. Wouldnât it be the least-effort solution? And in parallel least controversial, allowing also lower class license holders to enjoy the full lists of bordering summits?j
1 Like
I have done the exact opposite but both sides of the border are under the same jurisdiction. How would this work for a summit on the GI/EI border (not sure if there is one but if so it presents a problem to us, Rod & Vicki)?
Under these proposals does the AZ extend into both countries as before, so activation can be done by low level licensees each on their own side of the border? eg activating an EI summit with an MI6 callsign?
(If my EI/GI example is invalid there are plenty of real examples in continental Europe for which the same problem might apply.)
Sorry if this is unclear - English may be my native language but I am not always very good at it 
Rod
Yes.
If your license is good in EI, operate EI summit from EI side and sign EI/M0JLA.
If your license is bad in EI, operate EI summit from GI side and sign MI6BWA
Andy,
Thanks for that clarification; in that case I have no problem with the proposed solution, especially if it seems to be the least awkward one to implement. However, I would expect opposition from affected associations.
Rod
First, a factual observation to address a previous CEPT discussion point - and then an opinion. Facts can be important or trivia. As for opinions, everybody has one.
In the US, the Advanced Class License (with frequency privileges just one step below the Extra Class) is no longer being issued. While the total number of Advanced Class licenses declines every week, there are still in excess of 50,000 current Advanced Class License holders. Advanced Class license holders have exactly the same full CEPT privileges as an Extra Class license holder. One more US frequency privilege step down, a General Class License holder has partial CEPT privileges. The CEPT privileges, where granted to them, are actually the same as for the Extra and Advanced Classes; they are just recognized by decidedly fewer CEPT countries.
I appreciate that the MT (after considerable discussion) has reached what it feels is the best border Summits solution to fix a compromise they inherited. Now it seems there will be considerably more discussion to explain their rationale. Thank goodness they are appointed, and not elected. This is a fellowship, not a democracy. Democracies are great, but they can be difficult to govern efficiently.
If you want to see an example of just how anemic an experience SOTA could be, just check out POTA (Parks On The Air). That effort never took off. The funding and dedicated professionals needed to make it work never stepped in. Seriously, realize just how fortunate we are to have such a dedicated volunteer MT (and some very valuable support they do receive from outside the official Team). There is a parallel usage of the acronym SOTA. It is State Of The Art. Equally appropriate I think.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and to express it. Though it seems all the recently advanced suggestion had already been considered. Since it is always possible that a new as yet unconsidered potential solution will emerge, discussion is good. Not so good is any suggestion that this decision has any political or nationalistic implications. Where is the evidence? In my short association with SOTA, I have seen nothing but a welcoming spirit and nationalistic good will here. I understand that old-timers in any activity inherently resist change with all arguments at their disposal. I really do. I am in that old-timer category in other recreational pursuits. I guess itâs good to be a SOTA kid in these changing times.
Glenn â AB3TQ