Igor,
If I can rephrase your argument, you are saying:
1) Congrats to RDXC that they want to catch cheaters.
I agree.
2) That since no good method exists to do so, then an invalid method is OK.
i don't agree. Not even a little. To call a man a cheater, you had better
meet a pretty high standard.
3) You also say that no method is 100% reliable.
I'm sure that we all agree. But you thereby imply that what was used was quite
reliable, just not 100%. This is exactly what we are all refuting. It isn't
reliable AT ALL, as used. Even the people that create and maintain the tool
say so. When Bob offers alternative data that seems better tuned to the
situation, it is ignored. THAT is the issue.
RDXC always seems to introduce something far more suspect than that which they
claim to be trying to address. We call foul.
73,
Drew K3PA
-----Original message-----
From:cq-contest-request@contesting.com
Sent:Wed 10-05-2016 11:00 am
Subject:CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 166, Issue 13
To:cq-contest@contesting.com;
Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
cq-contest@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cq-contest-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power (Igor Sokolov)
2. Re: RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power (Jeff Kinzli N6GQ)
3. Re: RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power (Pete Smith N4ZR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:51:50 +0500
From: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
Message-ID: <102699C4E67641D99030F6148E629D57@cdcmobile>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I am not going to be on any side of the argument. But we all know that power
cheating exists and proliferates. It has become especially acute after the
introduction of the new WRTC selection rules which allowed LP category
compete against HP for the slot in WRTC.
IMHO RDXC should be commended for pioneering the battle against power
violations even though their attempt is not fully approved by some.
RDXC can be criticized for their approach but can critics offer other
reliable methods of fishing out power violators. I do not think that a 100%
reliable method exists.
Does it mean that contest community should not pay attention to power
violations? I do not think so. Otherwise, why have different power
categories in the rules when these rules cannot be enforced.
The simple solution would be to drop separation by power and have all the
participants compete in one power category. But would such a radical step
be to the benefit of the contest community? Would it increase participation?
I think not.
Then why don't we as a community use this precedent and try to find a
solution? Let's work out methods of verification of power cheating that
would be acceptable by a majority of the participants. This will be to the
benefit of all the contest sponsors where power categories exist.
Disclaimer: I have no relation to RDXC committee and not competing for slot
in WRTC. I just like the art contesting and want make better.
73, Igor UA9CDC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|