Bob
First of all, I want all the cheaters to be caught, I want this to be very
clear.
But your email really surprised me. All must be treated equally. You said "Look
at those scores - all made without cheating of any kind!" How do you know
that W2SC, N6MJ, M0DXR, AE6Y, N2TK didn´t cheat in a contest that finished
few days ago? Did you already analyzed the logs? You cannot make this
statement based on your perception or knowledge of people.
I do not think they lied either, but I´m nobody and on the other hand Bob,
we´re in your hands! You are the guy that analyze the logs!. All must be
treated equally.
Other point, you said "Using assistance and self-spotting are the two
biggest offenses". WHY? what happen to power cheating? Multi ops on single
ops entries? Multiple locations thousands of miles further for the same
station declared
All are important, maybe you said that because you are focused on the use
of cluster and found a way to catch this type of lies, and I´m very happy
for that and I hope you can detect all those who lie on using the cluster
BUT also hope you can detect the power cheating. For me this is worst,
competing with power cheating is not funny.
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
2017-03-11 10:20 GMT-03:00 <w5ov@w5ov.com>:
> Bill has an interesting point here. Are contest entrants getting their
> moneys' worth from the contest adjudicators? Since there are no entry
> fees, the case could be made that entrants get a lot more back.
>
> That all said, contrary to Bill's assertion, it IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE to
> determine who is using skimmer, assistance, etc. Just like in Bill's
> running analogy, the log shows where you went, when, how fast you got
> there, etc. If the log checker sees that you've gone "5 miles in 5
> minutes" they know that there's no way you ran it yourself. You hopped in
> a car, called Uber, or used some other kind of assistance. Behavior can
> be "seen" from the log. In addition, since nearly everyone you worked
> sends in a log, what you did can be "built" and analyzed from what others
> have reported you did - even if you don't submit a log.
>
> The amount of data available is growing every year, and more sophisticated
> analyses can be performed to detect various types of cheating that many
> still do. I've been involved in log checking for over 20 years and
> detecting cheating has gotten easier because of the availability of data
> and the ability to analyze huge amounts of data quickly. The work
> required to analyze that data is hard work, but having the data and faster
> computers enables it to be done more quickly. Using assistance and
> self-spotting are the two biggest offenses. Rubber clocking is also
> represented in the mix, but much less common these days.
>
> Those who cheat will and do get caught. They are given an opportunity to
> admit it & take a reclassification, or be either disqualified or have
> their log treated as a Checklog (depending on circumstances). Public
> outcry is not part of that process, and those who cheat, get upset about
> it, and take their case to the court of public opinion are truly wasting
> their time and energy. The cheating entrant who seeks to gain public
> support for his anti-contest adjudicator position is not winning any
> converts in the log adjudicator camp. Again, those who cheat will get
> caught. The analysis processes work and are correct.
>
> If you don't want the public ridicule and embarrassment, the remedy is
> very simple: Don't cheat.
>
> Will you be asked for a recording? It is highly unlikely unless... you
> cheat.
>
> Bill - thanks for your kind words about the "public grief" we get, but
> most of it comes from people who don't know how the process they're
> criticizing actually works. That's OK, because no one needs to know *ALL*
> of the details - especially those who cheat.
>
> One of the things that is apparently equally misunderstood is that the
> guys who actually win single op do not mess around with trying to figure
> out how to hide their use of assistance or scheme either alone or with
> friends to self-spot themselves. They focus their energies entirely on
> maximizing what they do alone on the air during the contest.
>
> Look at last weekend's results from the ARRL DX SSB:
>
> 8P5A(W2SC) 9015 333 47 9,005,985 NCCC
> ZF2MJ(N6MJ) 9384 306 46.5 8,607,168 SCCC
> TI5W(MØDXR) 8000 329 46 7,896,000 CDXC
> P49Y(AE6Y) 7962 328 42 7,834,608 MLDXCC
> KP2M(N2TK) 6041 304 40 5,508,480 FRC
>
> No assistance or self-spotting anywhere in that bunch. Most impressive to
> me are the much more "experienced" entries in 4th and 5th place. Nice
> work running with the 'kids' in the 1st 3 slots Andy and Tony!
>
> Look at those scores - all made without cheating of any kind!
>
> That's how it's done.
>
> Don't cheat.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
> On Fri, March 10, 2017 10:58 pm, Bill via CQ-Contest wrote:
> > With panadapters, waterfall displays, SO2R, and bandmaps allowed in
> > unassisted it is actually impossible to determine who is using Skimmer
> > technology and who isn't. If you disagree with this, please explain.
> >
> >
> > The real question is how much log checking should a contest entrant
> > expect from a group of volunteer log checkers after paying a $0 entry
> fee?
> >
> >
> > In running and cycling competitive events, lots of entry fee $$$ is paid
> > to get an ankle strap with a timing chip. No serious competitor cuts the
> > course. The split times are available on line by the time you get back to
> > your car. I have spent $250 for a single mountain bike race. And I sure
> > didn't finish in the top 10 or 100 or 500.
> >
> >
> > For their their $0 entry fee should serious unassisted competitors' logs
> > just get a cursory check to make sure the 80M VU2 Q is valid?
> >
> > So many of the posts on this topic are "it's all about me and what I
> > want". The next time you submit a log and don't have to type in a VISA
> > number to enter, you should be thankful. Would YOU volunteer to check
> logs
> > and listen to recorded SO2R audio and get public grief from people that
> > can't even follow the rules?
> >
> > 73, Bill KO7SS on Mt Lemmon in southern Arizona
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
--
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|