Discussion in 'Ballroom Dance' started by dancelvr, Jul 28, 2014.
As a ProAm student, I love all of these features.
- Electronic signatures and records are considered acceptable in places in the business world where there's *far* more at stake than at the largest ballroom competition. Now, Larinda is a judge, so I assume her question about whether or not o2cm has an option for electronic signatures was a pointed one. That ought to be fixable though rather than something that inherently disallows electronic record-keeping.
- At the championship level, am dancers are as much career dancers as they are in the pro ranks.
- USA Dance Nationals is hardly small potatoes, at least so far as ballroom dancing competitions are concerned
- I think you're significantly underestimating the difficulty of hacking. I do not know what sort of encryption o2cm uses, but if it uses any at all, an "electronic intervention" would *not* be cheap.
- Doesn't compmngr have allowances for electronic entry of marks and electronic records anyways? It seems like most of the NDCA comps I've been to have had paper sheets, but Douglas Associates certainly says electronic entry is an option for compmngr, and I see nothing in the NDCA rulebook that disallows its use. ("If the organizer is using COMPMNGR written by Richard Douglas, a computer Disk with the above information may be sent in lieu of the written paperwork.")
You "paper" people are aware that O2CM is perfectly capable of scoring paper marks, just as much as COMPMNGR is--right?
Yep, O2CM will work with judges marks on paper, but someone has to type the marks into the O2CM system.
And as far as "Electronic Scrutineering Files". O2CM shows a worksheet as to how the judges' marks were translated into placements.
So what's missing?
Yeah, I was under the impression that the systems were pretty comparable in that regard, but I am not a judge. (Duh.)
On the paper vs. electronic thing, I'd also like to add that well-written software (I have no particular idea if any of the software under discussion qualifies) should signficantly reduce the chances of inadvertant human error in the process of recording and tabulating of marks. That's certainly not a criticism of anyone. Goodness knows I code up the simplest of tasks since I know that if I have to repeat it often enough, I will eventually fat-finger something. In general, that seems far more likely to me than someone hacking the system.
Uh ..... banks use electronic records for your money; brokerage houses use eletronic records for your 401k, etc. ... which is FAR more important to the vast majority of people than dance competition results.
.... Does it not work similarly for other systems like Compmngr?
I did my master's work on a similar problem (voting). At the time I was primarily interested in computer security in my undergrad and grad computer science coursework. I'm a professional software engineer and have continued to stay in touch with security issues. As for the specific mention of electronic records in the financial system that arose while I was typing this, I am well aware of them; and I'm guessing that (although I don't work directly in that industry and am not intimately familiar with its intricacies) I understand their use better than most DFers (though conceivably not as well as some). I don't really want to debate this topic at length on DF.
I'm not defending the current dance competition rules as written, one software package over another, the NDCA, or anything else. I'm not asserting that the current NDCA policy is self-consistent nor even particularly good (nor bad). I don't know anything about the relative features of the software under discussion.
My (very narrow) point is merely that paper has certain merits that electronic records (even "signed" ones; never mind a whole side discussion regarding degrees of cryptographic sophistication) lack. It's a conclusion I -- at first reluctantly -- reached after careful research and thought, and have retained over many years during which I have given it further critical consideration. It's also the assertion I personally will stick with on DF.
Therefore, I am sympathetic with this point below, from early in the thread:
*shrug* -- Take it for whatever it's worth.
Both O2CM and Compmanager work with paper forms. In both cases, you have someone manually entering them into a computer, and in both cases you have the (recommended) option of keeping the paper forms in case of any discrepancies. If they have concerns about a paper trail, all they have to do is say "No judges entering marks on a PDA". Most collegiate comps that use O2CM don't use PDAs and retain all of the benefits that JudeMorrigan listed, as well as maintaining a paper trail.
I would imagine that errors from copying by hand thousands of marks every day are more significant errors than hacked scoresheets or failed software crashes.
You'll note that she amended that later. The full quote from the rulebook is:
The rulebook only has allowances for electronic results from compmngr, but it does allow them.
…preferably on an 800k floppy disk lol
My impression from various comments on the thread (I have not read the rulebook recently) was that although submission to NDCA might be compmngr records, organizers were required to retain paper for a specific period. I think there would be merits to such a policy.
Ummm, yeah. Just like Chicago elections. ;-)
You can hire a bunch of monks to copy the screen to paper, and then ride your buggy home.
I worked for an investment bank at one point in my life, for their IT department. They were keeping electronic records for all transactions, but they had to keep physical trail on those records as well, to be in compliance with assorted regulations. 7 years worth of paper records records takes up a lot of space and 7 years of electronic transaction records takes up a lot of electronic space as well (they were running into performance issues because of the amount of records they had to store). Obviously competition scores aren't banking records on many levels, but requiring business entities (and a competition is a business entity in this aspect) to keep paper records in addition to electronic records is not new.
Gotta say that I find it somewhat ironic that the NDCA would pay so much attention to the document retention policies of competition organizers when, per its most recently available 990, the NDCA does not have a written document retention policy of its own.
Love the o2cm feature of real time updates to when you dance next. Helps if the comp runs ahead or behind super useful
I did not claim that it is impossible to commit election (or scoring) fraud in the absence of electronic mechanisms. The Kennedy-Nixon election (a famous "Chicago election" example) was part of my research, and is merely one fairly recent example of a long history of election fraud schemes in the world. It seems extremely likely to me that I have studied more such examples than you have.
This and other snide/derisive/mocking comments notwithstanding, paper records possess certain useful properties (even, or perhaps especially, in the event that fraud is rightly or falsely claimed) that electronic ones do not possess. Every point I made still stands, in the post to which the quote above was directed.
Separate names with a comma.