Hi Martin:
We will continue to strongly disagree about what is good for our sport and our
hobby! One I think we both love. :-)
Your arguments support eliminating power categories and single operator
categories as well - both also offer cheaters opportunity to take unfair
advantage.
I do not believe requiring all competitive entrants to use all the available
technology to have a chance to win is best for our sport or our hobby.
I don't believe the future dotrction of our sport should be controlled by
cheaters either.
73,
Mark, KD4D
On May 23, 2016 10:14:07 PM EDT, "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar> wrote:
>Hello Mark,
>I understand your point.
>In fact, I also enjoy entering SO without any assistance very much.
>After
>many years of entering assisted, I would say that I enjoy it even more
>than
>when using DX alerting. The thrill of finding mults is bigger and it
>feels
>more rewarding.
>You can check CQ WW DX CW of the years 2013 and 2014. I participated
>from
>CE3CT, I even won a beautiful plaque for SOAB HP Southern Cone!
>However ,despite what I end up enjoying more these days, and despite
>the
>fact that keeping categories separated make it easier to win a plaque,
>at
>least from these latitudes, I feel that I really don't do any good to
>our
>"sport" by putting my personal likes and convenience before what's best
>for
>our hobby overall.
>Scores cannot be compared to make conclusions. The situation is very
>simple. DX Assistance is being abused by cheaters, to take an unfair
>advantage over their peers and it cannot be detected.
>Those cases that are detected belong to silly guys that abuse packet
>usage
>in a big way.
>I recall a very close finish between two US stations in SOAB in CQ WW
>CW a
>few years ago. Though I know the integrity of the two ops in questions
>nothing can be said about the result. But what if the ops involved in
>that
>very close race were others. You could never tell which was using
>packet
>cluster to grab a few extra tens of mults throughout the weekend at
>all.
>
>Too bad people cannot realize what's best for the sport.
>
>I'll continue to enter SOAB when I feel like doing so, even if the two
>categories are combined and I have no chance to win anything at all.
>
>73,
>
>Martin LU5DX
>
>On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:11 PM, <kd4d@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Good day, Martin:
>>
>> It makes sense to keep the separation between single operator and
>single
>> operator Assisted/Unlimited because many of us believe the skill
>involved
>> in finding stations to work without having a computer or other
>operator do
>> it for us is worth measuring (and a lot of fun). The organizers of
>WRTC,
>> for one, agree - look at their rules sometime.
>>
>> It is not obvious that operators who don't use the DX alerting
>assistance
>> (particularly on CW) will do better than those who do not - THAT is
>what
>> the SOs are complaining about. We don't want to be forced to use DX
>> alerting assistance to compete. The same operators, using DX
>alerting
>> assistance, will make higher scores than they do without...The CW
>> skimmers/RBN have made this particularly obvious for CW operations.
>>
>> Clearly, combining the categories is all about comparing the highest
>> scores for everyone and everyone wishing to be competitive will use
>DX
>> alerting assistance if the categories are combined. I certainly use
>it in
>> WAE (where there is one category) when I operate that contest.
>>
>> Why do the advocates of combining the categories - surely they only
>> operate Assisted - want to combine the categories anyway? I
>understand the
>> concerns of the contest organizers, but why do any of the Assisted
>> operators care?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Mark, KD4D
>>
>> At this point it makes no sense to keep this separation anymore.
>>
>> In the end, SO will keep doing better than those who use DX alerting
>> assistance, so what SOs are complaining about?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "LU5DX Martin" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
>> To: "Davor Kucelin" <davor.kucelin@plavalaguna.hr>, "cq-contest" <
>> cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:08:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change
>>
>> What's your point?
>>
>> Combining SOAB and SOAB(A) has nothing to do with comparing the
>highest
>> scores in each category.
>>
>> It's about eliminating the possibility of taking even a very small
>unfair
>> advantage throughout the 48-hour period that can place a cheater
>above
>> his/her competitors (even if it is very little above in the rankings)
>>
>> It also has to do with eliminating the burden and work overload that
>> implies trying to find those who cheat.
>>
>> Reality is that ops who cheat have perfected their techniques beyond
>what
>> can be detected by log checkers. Those who get caught year after year
>are
>> those who abuse of DX clusters in a very obvious way.
>>
>> At this point it makes no sense to keep this separation anymore.
>>
>> In the end, SO will keep doing better than those who use DX alerting
>> assistance, so what SOs are complaining about?
>>
>> They can even still use a pen and paper logs and send CW with a
>straight
>> key if they want.
>>
>> Are there still contesters out there entering contests because they
>think
>> they are winning anything at all, or winning over anybody at all??
>>
>> What in the world would make someone think he/she is winning over
>someone
>> who is thousand of miles away, with totally different equipment,
>> propagation and participating according to a bunch of rules that are
>hardly
>> enforceable?t
>>
>> C'mon guys. It seems like intelligence is inversely proportional to
>egos
>> among certain high profile contesters :-)
>>
>> Our "competitions" have nothing of real competitions. It is just a
>game of
>> enjoyment, but if we are still going to pretend these are
>competitions, at
>> least we can establish the foundations to make them something a bit
>more
>> trustworthy in those terms.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Martin LU5DX
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Davor Kucelin <
>> davor.kucelin@plavalaguna.hr
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > CQWW SSB Top 10 scores all years
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > SOABHP
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1 EA8BH 1999 SO HP ALL 25,646,796
>> > 10,253 176 692 - N5TJ
>> >
>> > 2 CN2R 2004 SO HP ALL 20,938,680
>> > 8,655 172 668 - W7EJ
>> >
>> > 3 D4B 2004 SO HP ALL 20,433,438
>> > 8,799 172 674 - 4L5A
>> >
>> > 4 D4B 2003 SO HP ALL 20,119,968
>> > 8,956 169 634 - 4L5A
>> >
>> > 5 CN2R 2003 SO HP ALL 18,743,250
>> > 8,682 152 594 - W7EJ
>> >
>> > 6 HC8A 1999 SO HP ALL 18,607,050
>> > 8,638 175 595 - N6KT
>> >
>> > 7 CN2R 2011 SO HP ALL 18,518,160
>> > 8,409 167 593 44.7 W7EJ
>> >
>> > 8 CN2R 2013 SO HP ALL 18,277,746
>> > 8,370 167 579 46.9 W7EJ [Cert]
>> >
>> > 9 HC8A 2000 SO HP ALL 18,122,040
>> > 9,160 163 547 - N6KT
>> >
>> > 10 8P5A 2013 SO HP ALL 17,059,840
>> > 10,126 162 518 48.0 W2SC
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > SOAB ASSISTED HP
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1 9Y4ZC 2003 SA HP ALL 14,979,055
>> > 8,114 137 500 - DL6FBL
>> >
>> > 2 P40A 2011 SA HP ALL 14,332,656
>> > 7,478 156 513 43.5 KK9A
>> >
>> > 3 TM6M 2015 SA HP ALL 14,263,470
>> > 7,057 168 667 47.9 F8DBF [Cert]
>> >
>> > 4 P40P 2002 SA HP ALL 12,975,732
>> > 6,639 154 528 - W5AJ
>> >
>> > 5 EF8U 2013 SA HP ALL 12,743,163
>> > 6,656 154 533 45.0 EA8RM [Cert]
>> >
>> > 6 NN3W 2011 SA HP ALL 11,828,236
>> > 4,921 185 683 44.7 @N3HBX
>> >
>> > 7 OH0X 2015 SA HP ALL 11,790,240
>> > 6,294 174 706 48.0 OH6KZP
>[Cert]
>> >
>> > 8 P40W 2003 SA HP ALL 11,755,443
>> > 6,730 137 496 - W2GD
>> >
>> > 9 D4B 2002 SA HP ALL 11,567,412
>> > 5,845 152 586 - 4L5A
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > CQWW CW Top 10 scores all years
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > SOABHP
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1 EA8BH 2000 SO HP ALL 18,010,765
>> > 7,555 183 634 - N5TJ
>> >
>> > 2 ZF2MJ 2015 SO HP ALL 16,730,788
>> > 10,014 170 527 48.0 N6MJ [Cert]
>> >
>> > 3 CR3OO 2015 SO HP ALL 16,090,078
>> > 8,812 152 474 48.0 CT1BOH
>[Cert]
>> >
>> > 4 P40E 2003 SO HP ALL 15,943,070
>> > 7,828 169 546 - CT1BOH
>> >
>> > 5 EF8M 2011 SO HP ALL 15,846,012
>> > 7,873 160 531 48.0 RD3A
>> >
>> > 6 PZ5T 2011 SO HP ALL 15,673,940
>> > 7,592 173 545 47.4 VE3DZ
>> >
>> > 7 CR3E 2012 SO HP ALL 15,221,316
>> > 7,275 170 556 48.0 CT1BOH
>[Cert]
>> >
>> > 8 CR3E 2011 SO HP ALL 15,151,668
>> > 7,212 168 564 48.0 CT1BOH
>> >
>> > 9 EF8M 2010 SO HP ALL 15,117,795
>> > 7,598 158 535 47.8 RD3A
>> >
>> > 10 HC8N 1999 SO HP ALL 14,626,579
>> > 7,001 185 546 - N5KO
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > SOAB ASSISTED HP
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1 9Y4ZC 2004 SA HP ALL 14,581,665
>> > 6,576 169 596 - DL6FBL
>> >
>> > 2 5B/AA1TN 2004 SA HP ALL
>13,715,573
>> > 6,381 170 627 - RW3QC
>> >
>> > 3 EF9O 2013 SA HP ALL 13,530,554
>> > 5,826 171 623 46.6 EA5BM [Cert]
>> >
>> > 4 K5ZD/1 2014 SA HP ALL 12,768,365
>> > 4,993 190 697 44.3 [Cert]
>> >
>> > 5 EF8U 2013 SA HP ALL 11,955,126
>> > 5,700 169 602 44.2 EA8RM [Cert]
>> >
>> > 6 CN3A 2010 SA HP ALL 11,818,159
>> > 5,729 156 577 46.4
>> >
>> > 7 NP4Z 2013 SA HP ALL 11,341,512
>> > 6,059 165 591 46.9
>> >
>> > 8 K5ZD/1 2015 SA HP ALL 11,275,488
>> > 4,742 179 654 44.9 [Cert]
>> >
>> > 9 CT9M 2002 SA HP ALL 11,225,452
>> > 5,181 159 605 - DL2CC
>> >
>> > 10 P40C 2014 SA HP ALL 11,085,536
>> > 6,242 154 462 44.8 KU1CW
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So what are we talking about?
>> >
>> > Best Assisted score is way below 10th unassisted score.
>> >
>> > What are you than scared about to combine the 2 categorys.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 73 Dave 9A1UN
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|