Steve,
Since you are not part of the CQWW Committee, what you say is your opinion
only, and completely irrelevant.
I hope those reading your comments keep that in mind.
73,
Bob W5OV
On Wed, April 19, 2017 9:28 am, Steve London wrote:
> That sure isn't what it says in
>
>
> http://cqww.com/blog/cqww-2016-ssb-self-spotting-and-entrant-audio-record
> ings/
>
> Audio Recordings: Any single operator entrant (see V.A.1) competing for
> a top three finish at the (a) World, (b) Continent, or (c) USA levels, must
> record the transmitted and received audio as heard by the operator for the
> duration of the contest operation.
>
> So if you were #1 in Asia for 160m mono-band, low power, you should have
> recorded your contest effort. This rule applies to all categories, not
> just to single-op, all-band.
>
> We sent out multiple requests for entrant audio recordings, as required
> by the Rule shown above. Unfortunately, more than half of those contacted
> were not able to comply.
>
> Follow all of the rules, including XII.C [Audio Recording] and you be in
> excellent shape.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>
> Just because one member of the CQWW triumvirate says "Your
> interpretation is precisely correct" does not mean the other two members
> agree, nor does it mean that any future member of the CQWW committee will
> agree. All you can trust are the written rules, and, even they are subject
> to interpretation and arbitrary abuse.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
>
>
> On 04/18/2017 07:54 PM, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
>
>> Yes, Mark;
>>
>>
>> Your interpretation is precisely correct.
>>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>
>> Bob W5OV
>>
>>
>> On Tue, April 18, 2017 7:48 pm, Mark wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I may clarify your reply on this topic. Are you saying:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. The Committee will only request audio recordings where they
>>> believe an entrant has breached the rules. 2. In this instance where
>>> the Committee asks for an audio recording and it is not supplied then
>>> they may DQ the entrant. 3. Accordingly an entrant will never be
>>> asked to supply an audio recording simply for the sake of it and then
>>> DQ'd solely because they
>>> cannot do so.
>>>
>>> If this is the case (and it sounds fair to me) can I suggest it goes
>>> in the FAQs?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Mark ZL3AB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Dave Edmonds
>>> <dave@pkministrywebs.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bob,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for giving the participants more insight into what's
>>>> happening behind the 'closed doors' of the contest. I'm an admin for
>>>> the SCQP and I
>>>> can identify with your philosophy etc.
>>>>
>>>> In early 2015, just coming off of the ARRL Centennial, I was
>>>> working a state QP. I read the rules and knew how to play the
>>>> contest. After about 6
>>>> hours into the contest when it got very slow, I self-spotted on the
>>>> cluster. I knew the rules, but after self-spotting on and off
>>>> during the Centennial, it was almost a habit. A second after I
>>>> pressed the "Enter"
>>>> key, I realized that I broke the rules and bowed out of the contest
>>>> with a higher score than the ultimate winner. We've all been
>>>> there... It was a lesson learned. What good is winning if you
>>>> didn't play it straight.
>>>>
>>>> I've got a digital recorder hooked to the headphone jack of my
>>>> IC-751
>>>> for recording purposes. My only problem is that battery life is
>>>> short and it's just one more thing to have to monitor during a
>>>> contest..I'll try to keep it going during the next WW or other major
>>>> contest.
>>>>
>>>> 73s Dave WN4AFP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:48 PM, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, in all of this, there is one way to avoid all of it.
>>>>> Do
>>>>> not cheat. It is as simple as that. If you do not cheat it will
>>>>> not be likely you will be asked for anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you do cheat, with the proliferation of all kinds of data
>>>>> available and SDR recordings on every continent, contest
>>>>> adjudicators can determine what was going on very easily.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been seen this year, many more stations were caught and
>>>>> disqualified than ever before. Last year was the same. The trend
>>>>> of increasing disqualifications is likely to continue. If
>>>>> cheating is still rampant, then disqualifications will increase.
>>>>> Maybe, the
>>>>> higher likelihood of getting caught will reduce the number of
>>>>> those who will cheat next year? I certainly hope so. It would be
>>>>> nice not to have so many disqualifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember too, that MORE warnings were issued this year than there
>>>>> were disqualifications! So, there could have been more DQs had
>>>>> the evidence been more compelling.
>>>>>
>>>>> The behavior of cheaters is that they apparently believe that it
>>>>> is impossible to "prove" cheating. While if we use the same
>>>>> standards as required in a court of law, we might not, but this is
>>>>> amateur radio contesting and we have a team of experienced
>>>>> contesters looking at all evidence available, and collectively,
>>>>> what is possible and what is likely is taken into consideration.
>>>>> Allowing for people who don't
>>>>> know better, or are beginners is also taken into account - if the
>>>>> entrants are forthright and helpful in the analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what do you do? Obey the rules. Do not cheat. You will
>>>>> likely get caught. If you happen to win something, and do not
>>>>> cheat, great!
>>>>>
>>>>> Those who won this year were not asked for recordings - because
>>>>> there was no reason to ask them. Others, who were warned last
>>>>> year about apparent cheating, and were explicitly told that if the
>>>>> behavior was repeated, they would be asked for recordings. One or
>>>>> more did not comply and their logs were converted to Checklogs as
>>>>> a result.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CQWW committee does not want to do this. Any thought
>>>>> otherwise is simply incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob W5OV
>>>>> CQWW Contest Committee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, April 18, 2017 1:10 pm, Dave Edmonds wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Great comments... How about this scenario.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I start working the contest without a recording knowing that I
>>>>>> would not be able to give it a 'competitive' effort due to the
>>>>>> fact that my wife
>>>>> and
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> are attending a wedding on Saturday. We'll on Saturday morning I
>>>>>>
>>>>> receive a
>>>>>> call from the wedding party that the groom ran away with the
>>>>>> maid of honor and the wedding was canceled..Now I'm not going to
>>>>>> the wedding
>>>>> and I
>>>>>> can devote my weekend to the contest.... Oooopppps... I can't
>>>>>> be competitive because I could win a top 3 spot in the USA and
>>>>>> if I win I could be DQ'ed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do I do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A. Don't work the contest competitively (that's no fun).
>>>>>> B. Work the contest competitively and submit a check log (that's
>>>>>> no reward). C. Work the contest competitively, submit a log and
>>>>>> bet on the contest committee not requesting a recording. D. Blow
>>>>>> off the contest
>>>>> and
>>>>>> find another wedding to attend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> Dave@wn4afp.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Mark <markzl3ab@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CQ WW Committee blog post about audio recording is a bit
>>>>>>> of surprise to me. Up until now I had figured audio recording
>>>>>>> would only be an issue in Oceania for the serious entrants
>>>>>>> (i.e. entries
>>>>>>> with lots of QSOs and/or hours on the air). In Oceania a
>>>>>>> casual entry of 1-200
>>>>> Qs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> could easily put you in the top three of just about any
>>>>>>> single op
>>>>>>>
>>>>> single
>>>>>>> band category, assuming the category even had three entrants
>>>>>>> (I
>>>>>>> won the Oceania CW 40m QRP assisted category and set a new
>>>>>>> record with one QSO and two points a
>>>>> few
>>>>>>> years back). In its post the committee quotes the Asian 160m
>>>>>>> low power category. Looking at the 2016 SSB results there
>>>>>>> were no entrants in that category (assuming there wasn't an
>>>>>>> entrant(s) who was moved to
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> checklog for not audio recording) so any entry at all would
>>>>>>> have won
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> In Oceania
>>>>>>> there was one entrant who made four QSOs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would pick most if not all ops who perceive themselves as
>>>>>>> casual would not audio record their entry (or even know they
>>>>>>> had to). Is it really the Committee's intention to DQ casual
>>>>>>> entrants who end up in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> top three due to a lack of other entrants, if they do not
>>>>>>> provide an audio record? If so then I'd suggest the rules
>>>>>>> should be amended to make it clear that any entry competitive
>>>>>>> or not which ends up in the
>>>>> top
>>>>>>> three is subject to the audio recording requirement because
>>>>>>> casual ops will not consider themselves competitive. It will
>>>>>>> of course have the effect of decimating casual single category
>>>>>>> entries in this part of world (such as it is) by ops who
>>>>>>> just enter for fun but who do not want to run the risk of
>>>>>>> being besmirched by a DQ. A better way (and it seems to me
>>>>>>> contesting is heading this way in general) would be for
>>>>>>> entrants to be able to enter any category they like but
>>>>>>> designate themselves as casual or competitive. If casual then
>>>>>>> they would not need to provide an audio record but could still
>>>>>>> be
>>>>> listed
>>>>>>> in the results database for their category (assuming they
>>>>>>> comply with the other rules). However they would not eligible
>>>>>>> for a certificate which would go to the highest competitive
>>>>>>> entries and who of course would need to provide an audio
>>>>>>> record on request. Also only
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> competitive
>>>>>>> entries would be eligible to set records and to be listed in
>>>>>>> the top entrant lists in the results write up. At least this
>>>>>>> way an entrant
>>>>> can
>>>>>>> make a conscious decision as to how they want their entry to
>>>>>>> be treated rather than run the risk of a DQ if they are
>>>>>>> unlucky enough to enter a category with less than three other
>>>>>>> entrants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 73
>>>>>>> Mark ZL3AB
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Edmonds
>>>>>> PK Ministry Webs
>>>>>> 864.288.6678
>>>>>> dave@pkministrywebs.com www.pkministrywebs.com
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Edmonds
>>>> PK Ministry Webs
>>>> 864.288.6678 <(864)%20288-6678>
>>>> dave@pkministrywebs.com www.pkministrywebs.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|