There are for sure cultural/ethical differences that can explain the low
"zero" appearance of DQs from Continental USA or Canada - at least related
to Self-Spotting and Non-Assisted category.
HOWEVER, there are a few US stations that have AMAZINGLY bad ears on Low
Bands.
They are not located in urban areas of the US.... It amazes me that you
Anericans, with so high moral standards, have not identified those power
cheaters yet...
In Europe (East, West and South), power cheating is so common, it is hard
to distinguish the full rotten apples from the half rotten...
In NA, the rotten apples are still so few, that you guys should have been
able to separate them from the vast majority 98-99% of clean power
operators...
I agree that the NA clean picture is not good. The geographical spread om
log checking volunteers say nothing. The decision making is done by a few
NA contesters.
73 de Mats RM2D
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 at 19:51, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
> A couple of clarifications to my earlier comments:
>
>
>
> While the current “director” of the CQWW is in the USA, the vast majority
> of the volunteers involved in the analysis work is spread out all around
> the globe. There is no country, regional, or CQ Zone bias.
>
>
>
> Out of band: Most out of band qsos were disallowed for those who were out
> of band for the QSO in question – this was applied globally. Often, one
> party is legal on a frequency, another is not. Those who operated out of
> their band were penalized and given no credit for those qsos / mults. No
> one was DQed for this offense regardless of country / zone etc. Some who
> exhibited excessive carelessness about this matter were given formal
> warnings.
>
>
>
> Along with the other absurdities, the thought that USA / VE was given any
> favor is again completely without any merit.
>
>
>
> This is one of the issues most struggled with from a “what will be the
> perception be” perspective. However, things are the way they are, so the
> lack of USA / VE callsigns in the DQ list is purely coincidental. No one
> was given a pass.
>
>
>
> One could speculate about cultural differences that lead to apparent
> behaviors and so forth, but that discussion is clearly beyond the scope of
> this forum.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
>
>
> de W5OV
>
>
>
> From: Ria Jairam [mailto:rjairam@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 11:43 PM
> To: w5ov@w5ov.com
> Cc: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Disqualified callsigns - CQ WW SSB contest.
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your detailed explanation.
>
>
>
> I guess what concerns me and some others, particularly non-US amateurs is
> that the DQ list was solely competitors outside of CONUS and Canada.
>
>
>
> Personally I find it hard to believe that absolutely no one in CONUS or
> Canada cheated or otherwise violated the rules. In fact I know that is not
> the case and I heard numerous stations transmitting out of band for
> example, even one US multi op who was clearly transmitting out of band (as
> seen on my calibrated SDR waterfall, below the band edge) while running.
> Nothing happened. I'm also sure that some have "cheerleaders" that
> repeatedly spot them, possibly at their request. And there are definitely
> those that use unclaimed assistance.
>
>
>
> These are just examples, but the main point being is that there is the
> impression that foreign competitors are being singled out for rigorous
> enforcement while stateside and VE gets a free pass. I hope this isn't true
> but I and others can't help but have our doubts.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Ria
>
> N2RJ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM <w5ov@w5ov.com <mailto:w5ov@w5ov.com> >
> wrote:
>
> OK - Here goes:
>
> This is in the Results article in the magazine. If you had an online
> Zinio subscription, you could read it yourself. I understand that paper
> copies are propagating now.
>
> The following is an excerpt from the results article for the CQWW SSB 2016
> contest. This is as much detail as will be made available publicly, in
> writing, regarding who was DQ'ed for what reason.
>
> Since I wrote it, I'm going to copy the pertinent paragraphs from the
> article here:
> ************************************************************
> <BLOCKQUOTE>
> Cheating:
> One of the most difficult parts of contest adjudication is analyzing the
> submitted logs for possible cheating. Today, while the task remains
> enormous, the ability to collect globally originated real-time data to
> analyze has made more detection of cheating possible. “Possible” does not
> connote being “easy”. A lot of hours are invested by volunteers on
> several continents to assure that the contest results reflect the accurate
> results of the efforts of honest entrants.
>
> Assisted Cheating:
> Despite the exponential increases in disqualifications over the last few
> years, there are still those who try to get away with claiming that they
> are not assisted. The reasons one may cheat are varied and are indeed a
> mystery to many who love this game. What good does it do for you to
> cheat? What reward do you think you’ll earn? Please consider that you
> achieve nothing by cheating, and given the preponderance of data, it is
> likely you’ll be caught, and therefore be disqualified. No one on the
> CQWW committee takes pleasure in seeing an entrant being disqualified.
>
> Self-Spotting Cheating:
> The CQWW rules clearly state:
> IX. GENERAL RULES FOR ALL ENTRANTS:
> Self-spotting or asking to be spotted is not permitted.
>
> This seems pretty clear. Yet, this phenomenon seems to be growing as an
> issue. This year, we have warned and disqualified more entrants for this
> violation than ever before. Please stop self-spotting!
> <END BLOCKQUOTE>
> ************************************************************
> Back to my email to CQ-Contest:
>
> Every entrant who was likely to be disqualified was emailed at the email
> address they provided with their log. Many of them bounced. We don't have
> time to chase people down - sorry!
>
> The critique of how long it takes to get the results published seems to
> ignore how much work is involved in analyzing logs that from those who
> have cheated. Over half of the total violators only received a warning -
> this time. So, fewer than half of those who were found to have been
> cheating ended up actually being DQed. So, that means there were between
> 150 and 200 logs that were identified as containing rule violations of one
> sort or another. The vast majority are in the two categories noted in the
> above quoted material. Thousands of entrants' logs have no evidence of
> cheating in them whatsoever.
>
> Nothing arbitrary or capricious occurs in the DQ analysis process.
> Instead, it is a tortuous and gut-wrenching activity, not taken lightly by
> anyone involved. While there are wild accusations by a few of those who
> have been DQed this year, it is safe to say that had they not actually
> cheated, they would not have actually been DQed. Everyone of those who
> were DQed for self-spotting (for example) were found to have gone through
> extraordinary measures to obfuscate and hide their actions through the use
> of multiple callsigns and other methods. If it were innocent, and just "a
> couple of friends who didn't know any better" then why use fake callsigns?
> If it was innocent, they would have just used their normal callsign to
> spot the DQed person, would they not?
>
> So, I'm sure this will continue to be a hot topic, but I have to assure
> the contesting community that no one on the CQWW Committee took any of
> this lightly; no one had an "axe to grind" with any entrants to the
> contest nor had any reason to "want" to DQ anyone. Such accusations are
> absurd. There certainly was absolutely no consideration of anything
> related to WRTC activities, past, present, or future and there was
> especially no consideration or concern with who anyone may have had as
> their WRTC team-mate. All such accusations are also absurd, and
> completely without merit.
>
> In summary: All accusations of bias or desire to DQ anyone are completely
> false, and without any merit whatsoever.
>
> How to avoid this problem? Simple! Don't cheat!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
> For the CQWW Contest Committee
>
> On Wed, April 12, 2017 7:08 am, Ria Jairam wrote:
> > IMO, this is where the whole notion some have that "the CC doesn't need
> > to explain their actions so the cheaters don't know how to beat the
> system
> > "
> > falls apart.
> >
> > Transparency is a good thing and I'm hoping the CC at least gives a brief
> > explanation as to what rules were violated. Otherwise the decision would
> > seem arbitrary and capricious, especially since no continental US
> > stations were disqualified.
> >
> > 73
> > Ria, N2RJ
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:09 AM Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net
> <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I see the notation that this came from the April copy of CQ. There
> >> goes my first three paragraphs! <g>
> >>
> >> A lot of familiar or semi-familiar calls on that list.
> >>
> >>
> >> I do have to wonder if any of the station(s) that Mike VE9AA & others
> >> have had a legitimate concern about, WRT alleged or potential 'scrubbed'
> >> calls, are on this list. If that allegation is true (not that I
> >> disbelieve them, but so far we have only heard one side of the story),
> >> and the station(s) involved are on this list, well, it does make one
> >> wonder of that in turn led in whole or in part to the DQ.
> >>
> >> 73, ron w3wn
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com <mailto:
> cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> ] On Behalf Of
> >> DXer
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 6:52 PM
> >> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Disqualified callsigns - CQ WW SSB contest.
> >>
> >>
> >> I saw this on another list. Nothing on the CQWW Blog. Now I see it
> >> here:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://dx-world.net/disqualified-callsigns-cq-ww-ssb-contest/
> >>
> >>
> >> I find the following line disturbing: 'Reports suggest....'
> >>
> >>
> >> Any reason it had to be made public this way? I don't fault the
> >> website, it was a scoop.
> >>
> >> We all want the CC to do its job, but why/how the info got out this
> >> way? Somehow I doubt all these people volunteered the info they were
> >> disqualified.
> >>
> >> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
|