[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Survey

To: "'Bob Naumann'" <W5OV@W5OV.COM>, "'Edward Sawyer'" <SawyerEd@Earthlink.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Survey
From: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m73@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:06:40 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to answer the second question...

If I understand Ed's proposal correctly (and I may not), the benefit of
segregating participants into "Competitive" and "Non-competitive" classes
would be twofold: 1) To make it easier to catch cheaters by confining log
checking to a smaller Competitive class, and 2) to allow casual participants
to operate any way they see fit, without being restricted by the rules that
apply to the Competitive class.

I believe that, from a practical standpoint, such segregation isn't
necessary to achieve benefit #1. I'm not privy to all of the secret
processes that take place during log checking, but I'm pretty sure that
human intervention and additional technology (such as broadband recordings)
are only applied to entries that are in a position to win awards. I believe
that entries not in such position do not receive any scrutiny beyond what
the log checking program can do by itself. A Competitive class would
actually be a superset of the logs that get extra scrutiny, and that due to
resource constraints the contest sponsors wouldn't expand extra scrutiny to
the entire Competitive class, but would continue to use it only for entries
that are vying for an award. In other words, this wouldn't move the needle
on the sponsors' ability to catch cheaters.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of #2. By definition, a casual operator
doesn't need to cheat. The operator can simply submit the log under
High-Power Assisted or Multi-Op or whatever category matches what was done.
I don't know why a casual operator would lie about it if the log isn't
competitive anyway, and if he/she does lie, who cares? In CQ WW, there's
even a category that eliminates most of the rules: Extreme. The only item on
your list it wouldn't cover is running "totally illegal power", and that's a
completely different subject -- i.e., violation of the license authority's

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Naumann [mailto:W5OV@W5OV.COM]
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 9:28 AM
> To: 'Edward Sawyer'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Survey
> Ed,
> This is some thought-provoking commentary - thanks!
> I understand your premise, but I think we have to keep in mind that the
> universe of cheaters is just a small fraction of those who are serious
> competitors - which, as you say, are also just a small fraction of all
> those thousands who makes qsos in the contest.
> The point being, there are relatively few people who need to worry about
> the rules at all. Most people in the contest just turn on their radio -
> and through their preferred method - find and work other contest
> participants and that's all they put into it.
> To "qualify" my opinion, in the big DX contests, I've been a serious
> competitor as you describe since 1979 and have missed very few contests
> over that span. I have mostly been at multi-ops and usually full-time.
> Question 1:
> I think that it is indeed sad and pathetic that there are those who
> cheat in order to gain a hollow victory by:
> 1) single ops using spotting (packet, skimmer, RBN, etc.) and lying
> about it,
> 2) single ops using more than one operator and lying about it,
> (sometimes at more than one location)
> 3) having more than one signal on their air at one time (as applies to
> all
> categories)
> 4) running excessive power (totally illegal power levels) and lying
> about it,
> 5) running more power than your category allows (100w and claiming QRP
> etc.) and lying about it,
> 6) in multi-single, operating without regard for band change
> restrictions and then deleting the qsos from their log that violate
> those rules,
> 7) In multi-single, and multi-2, changing the times of qsos (rubber
> clocking) in order to attempt to avoid band change penalties,
> 8) etc., and on and on.
> Given time, I'm sure we could expand the list.
> So, will we gain anything by combining single op and single op assisted?
> In my opinion, the only differences are:
> 1) Those who love to operate without assistance will be forced to do so
> if they want to remain competitive.
> 2) #1 in the above list will no longer be an issue for the contest
> sponsors.
> As spotting use is only one of many ways of cheating, it makes no sense
> to me to surrender to this one form of cheating and not to the others.
> Question 2:
> While we can recognize that there are differences between "competitors"
> and "participants", I think that once we isolate the two groups through
> some criteria, we will end up with a "participant" who seeks to be at
> the top of the participant "heap", and he will push the envelope (cheat)
> in order to do so.
> Sadly, I think this is human nature. So, while the thought of
> segregating these two types of entrants seems to be a good thing, sadly,
> I think that the practical application of it may not achieve the desired
> goal.
> So, in summary I think things should be left as-is for the time being.
> W5OV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Edward Sawyer
> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 7:06 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Survey
> First of all I would like complement Randy for the superb job of heading
> up CQWW and being interested to gather opinion.  For those of you
> asking.what survey?  Then unless Randy made a mistake, you didn't submit
> a log for CQWW.
> There were 2 fundamental questions NOT on the survey which I think
> really captures my feeling and also addresses the classic
> sailboat/marathon analogies and the issues of combining the interests of
> 2 completely different groups of participants that need each other for
> everyone to have
> fun:
> My first question:  The Contest Committee has come leaps and bounds
> through dedication and technology advances and investment - both of
> significant time and money - to advance the ability to catch people not
> following the rules.
> They have made changes to assist them in the accuracy of this (re: log
> what you transmit because we are recording so if something changed after
> it says something).  However like all great technological advances - the
> more we know the more we realize what we don't know or can't solve at
> the same level of accuracy.  Examples of this are things like power
> level, radius of station antennas, log changes on S & P Qs, and complete
> accuracy on the use of internet assistance.  Would you favor accepting
> this continually improving but far from perfect method but keeping the
> categories currently in place or would you favor changing any area that
> we do not feel we can completely referee to be merged into those that we
> feel we can?  To qualify your opinion, what is the most number of hours
> you have logged as an active participant in the contest and what is the
> average of the past 5 years for contests you have entered?  (Note if you
> were Multi-Op were you there for the entire contest and if you were
> single band - were you on for the entire band activity?)
> My second question: Like a marathon or open golf tournament or ocean
> racing regatta, radiosport contesting consists of thousands of
> individuals participating.  Indeed in the latest CQ WW contests, over
> 5000 logs were submitted per weekend with many representing more than
> one person involved.
> It is safe to say that over 10,000 people are "involved" to some degree
> in CQ WW on one of its weekends.  Like anything in life, most are there
> for fun or personal motives.personal best, improvement, just to finish,
> just to participate etc.  Only a small percentage, typically less than
> 10% often less than 5% are actually IN for that weekend with an all out
> feeling of competition vs their peers (peers having different
> definitions depending on the event).  Would you be in favor of a
> "competition class" vs "participation class" ?  "Competition Class"
> would preserve the current categories but continue to increase
> safeguards for compliance some of which could require station recording,
> power monitoring etc and invoke a small participation fee to help fund
> the integrity for those so inclined and "participation class" would not
> provide such increased level of oversight but in fact increase the
> possibilities of "fun completion" among interest groups through the use
> of "slice and dice tools" of the contest logs through open log
> processing - ie "Black Hole QRPers" or "Bavarian Single Tower under 20m"
> or whatever.
> In my opinion, these 2 questions get to the heart of the matter.  We
> cannot insure everyone out there is not cheating and/or bending the
> rules so we either homogenize it down to that which we can - which is
> essentially one power category, all assisted, one signal at a time vs
> more than one, and no restrictions on antenna circle/property/remote
> receiving or are we accepting continuous improvement and the love of the
> game for those in seriously and preserving it.  And are those in
> seriously willing to step it up to protect (including financially in the
> form of station monitoring like recording and a power monitor for
> example and possibly a small fee to help the monitoring cause to the
> benefit of all).
> And finally, what do you view as seriously competitive in a contest like
> By the way, this example could be applied to other contests that you
> love like Sweepstakes, NAQP, WAE, WPX, ARRL DX etc.
> My votes? For question one, keep them and accept they are not perfect
> but greatly improving over time.  My max is 45 hours and I average 42.
> For question 2, yes I would opt in for competition class if it is the
> way to preserve the sport and to "belly up" with others if that is the
> majority opinion of those who are truly competing vs just having a lot
> of fun and that's it (which we all do from time to time).
> Respectfully submitted.
> Ed  N1UR
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

CQ-Contest mailing list

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