In response to the July Meeting outcome, I wrote the NDCA board the following mail (And received NO response)
To the National Dance Council of America
The O2CM goal in DanceSport competition is to support its customers (organizers) in an endeavor to improve competition experience for judges, competitors and spectators. Also it is designed to provide more accurate and transparent results than has been previously experienced by it’s developer in his competitive DanceSport career.
It has come to my attention that you have directly contacted O2CM customers regarding the restricted use of the O2CM system at their events. In your letter, you cite two issues where you assumed O2CM does not meet NDCA requirements. Both of these accusations are incorrect, and your restrictions are groundless.
Issue 1 –“the lack of hard copy records of judge's marks, signed by the judges themselves.”
The nearest rule you have to this is “IV.B.6. Judges shall mark and sign their score cards in ink, including their code letter, and shall initial each and every alteration.”
When you look at the
intent of this rule, written long before electronic judging was even possible, you would realize that this is to have reference documentation in the event that data transfer or tabulation is called into question. The possible errors and O2CM resolutions can are as follows
1) Scrutineer Errors
A. Calculation – O2CM automatically calculates results, there is no paper master scrutineer sheets, and no human error in calculation.
B. Data Entry Error – With O2CM, a scrutineer never touches the marks unless requested by judges or chairman
C. Scoresheet swapping between judges - with O2CM, this can’t happen unless forced by the system operator.
2) Judges errors
A. Placing couples multiple times - O2CM system prohibits this action
B. Recalling couple multiple times - O2CM system prohibits this action
C. Transposing numbers – O2CM system prohibits this action
Furthermore, the U.S. Code defines an
electronic signature for the purpose of US law as: "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.”
In the case of O2CM, it is a process consisting of:
1) A portable electronic pad, identified by name, dedicated and presented to a particular judge,
2) The Pad is directly connected to the receiving server by highly encrypted connection. (No intermediate connections as if on a the internet)
3) Each submission from the judge is written into a log (Printable), with the last submission being saved as the final decision in the marks database.
4) Each line on the log comes from that pad along with that judge’s identifier.
This process would be the similar to the judges typing their marks directly into CompMgr (although, with extra backup and logging added). And you may note that O2CM is far more secure and accurate than paper data transfer.
For added security, an entire backup of the local O2CM database is performed every 10 minutes. Also, at those events running live.o2cm features, marks are immediately stored (although not immediately displayed) to an online server.
Issue 2: “the Ballroom Department cannot access information from the electronic files associated with this software.”
I could not find a general rule regarding accessing electronic files. You do have rules regarding reporting of final results (III.E.1-4,7,8), and a specific exception for events using CompMgr (III.E.6).
I have been submitting electronic reports to the NDCA via Brian Puttock for most of the past 10 years with no issues raised. In discussions with Brian, he understood the full concept of O2CM, knew that results are posted online for all to see within minutes of the days end, and that there was no need for the submitted reports. At one event, he took advantage of O2CM online features to validate a competitor’s eligibility for dancing in a particular skill level, without having to refer to many electronic files submitted in the past. I will resume sending even more complete electronic reporting. Lee Wakefield has received several of these. This report should satisfy rules III.E.1-8.
If there are any other issues, or you feel the previous issues above are not sufficiently addressed, please submit a feature request to me at
markt@o2cm.com. Allow up 90 days for completion of any requests requiring system modification. Any request for specific data reporting or recording should be accompanied by a detailed specification for any electronic file(s) or processes. With proper communication, I can easily address issues as I have done with DanceSport Series, California Gold Rush and Superstar Dance Series
Might I suggest that the decision to restrict new systems should be a matter of the ballroom committee reviewing products against NDCA standards, and not a matter of a vote put forth to uninformed member bodies.
The NDCA should immediately contact those organizers that were previously restricted from using O2CM and inform them that
1) The vote to restrict O2CM was not based on factual information.
2) O2CM system does meet NDCA standards.
3) They may resume their use of the system.
Many existing customers have been with O2CM for many years. Some have never used CompMgr and would be seriously handicapped by using CompMgr.
Thank You
Mark Tabor
