[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet

To: "Kerr, Prof. K.M." <k.kerr@abdn.ac.uk>,<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
From: "Yuri VE3DZ" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Reply-to: Yuri VE3DZ <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:23:43 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I never suggested to use DX cluster and claim unassisted.
I never said that what Gedas LY3BA did (with his analysis) is wrong.

I was just trying to summarize the opinions from the[WW-Contest] reflector
and my point was:
- More attention to Assisted category (including more awards and plaques);
- Creating assisted category for the contests which do not have one at the
moment (ARRL, IARU, etc)...;
- Do not mix "Assisted" and "Multi Op" categories. This is just simply not
the same;
- Pointing fingers is not a good solution IMO. We should concentrate more on
the cause, not on the effect.

And yes, I still like to do everything "by myself" too.
However, I thought we were trying to find solutions how to deal with
cheating here and not sharing what "I or me or myself" like to do.
Frankly, I'm sorry I joined this discussion.

Yuri  VE3DZ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kerr, Prof. K.M." <k.kerr@abdn.ac.uk>
To: "Yuri VE3DZ" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet

Gedas should be congratulated on his work. No single working of a mult
can be considered damning. We could all innocently 'find' a mult that
just happened to have been spotted. It is the PATTERN which is, and
recognising this clearly takes time and careful analysis of the whole
log. Yes, it is possible that those behaviours which flag up likely
cluster use may be changed or masked and like you, I don't know what
sort of window of time could be regarding as 'suspicious'. I have never
really thought about it before. What I have witnessed, however, are the

Whilst operating in a M/M environment in CQWW and grabbing spots as soon
as they appeared, finding my self REPEATEDLY competing with another
station who subsequently claimed an unassisted entry.

Whilst operating SOAB unassisted, being called by groups of stations in
bursts, usually late in contests, most of whom were dupes. This usually
is the result of my call being busted in a spot. On one occasion I was
called by a very prominent Eu SOAB entrant, who claimed unassisted but
who was subsequently disqualified, closely followed by another top
contester who was assisted, suspected I was a bust and confirmed so with

You wrote ''When you are Assisted you _MAY_  (or you MAY NOT, when you
don't want) use spotting assistance from DX Cluster (not from physical
human). And you still remain just one "guy with his
radio".''.........but surely, when you use spotting assistance you are
one guy with your radio plus all the other guys feeding info into the
cluster? Your category is determined by your practice for the entire
event. Surely you are not suggesting that if you only grab a few spots
on Sunday night when things are a bit slow, you are not really assisted
because the rest of the time you were unassisted?? Perhaps I

You also said 'But when Single Op uses cluster it's kind of
shameful...'.....It is ONLY shameful if you do so and subsequently claim
you did not. A propos some of the other posts, my own previous
contribution to this debate was in no way intended to denigrate the
assisted category. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the
cluster, if that is what you want to do. Assisted is a perfectly valid
category with its own difficulties and challenges. It's just not for me,
thank you very much, as it removes one of the best 'buzzes' in
contesting, finding and working those mults. (Pile ups are fun too!). My
point was that I don't want to be 'forced' to use the cluster in order
to remain competitive. Rather I do what Gedas has done and don't enter
contests like WAEDC.

Opinions vary................

Keith GM4YXI (GM7V)

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>