The problem with these rules changes is this:
There are already lots of questions about what the rule really means and
how it is expected to be carried out and by whom. How do I know if I
am going to be a top contender at the start of the contest? Instead of
making the rules clear and easier to understand we are just making them
more convoluted.
I never said I didn't want to change any rules. The peer process should
be in place long before we ask for public opinion. How do they expect
us to comment on the new procedures when we really don't know what the
heck they are trying to fix or clarify?
The part about assistance is baffling. When did receiving outside data
NOT be assistance. Why has this question gone unanswered? Obviously
logs have been submitted using this information as SO Unassisted in the
past. So to all those that were doing it right you got screwed by some
esoteric interpretation of rule.
The recording rule does not specify if I MUST record the contest. It
says that I may be asked for a recording. When? Before the contest?
After the contest?
There is no discussion on why we need these new rule or what they are
trying to clarify ???? I understand they do not want to tip their hand
to certain cheating techniques or educating a bunch of people how best
to cheat.
By far the biggest cheaters are with power. Why has there been nothing
done to combat this? Is this a case of wink wink....we know and we just
are not going to do anything as we might upset our friends or catch them
and then be faced with having to do something about it?
These are our contests not CQ's, ARRL's, etc without participants they
have nothing. Which participants were included in the discussion that
brought these proposed changes. Do these organizers want the input of
the competitors or do they run with the idea that they know it all and
what is best for everyone.
So we have now reached the precipice where the sponsors are telling us
what radios we must use or we can't use. If you use a radio made by
Yaesu and it has nasty key clicks you can be disqualified because Yaesu
couldn't figure out how to build a proper keying circuit? No automatic
frequency entry, you can't play in the sand box and compete. Please
bring your pos radio and work all us elitists but we won't consider your
score with your crummy radio. This is starting to sound more like
NASCAR and less like a hobby, where most of us want to have fun.
There is no way to stop all cheating. You can send clear messages by
making the penalties quite stiff. Unlike what was done to TO7A. A
number of people have asked what does it take to get a 5 year ban a
lifetime ban and those questions have never been answered. You exploit
in an online game and caught chances are your account and all your stuff
will be deleted. They will ban your name, your credit card used, paypal
account will all be banned so you cannot play again under some other
name. This sends loud and clear messages.
The good ole boys club is alive and well in ham radio...................
On 5/22/2015 7:16 AM, Kevan Nason wrote:
Yan's comments about the object of sound recordings being available
seemed well thought out to me. He recognizes although it is not fool
proof it is a step in the right direction. Two others have posted ways
to comply with the proposed new audio recording rule with either a
free download or by purchasing a recorder that could easily be
connected to the headphone out or speaker jack and that costs less
than a decent headset or a couple visits to the gas station. Most
anyone with a shot at a good enough score to be questioned by the
Observers likely has the means to implement either of those pretty
easily. There are undoubtedly other free or low cost methods available
as well.
Mike, I know you like to be the Devils Advocate and stir things up.
But I've a question about your asking why the rules do not also
require power monitoring and video recorders. Are you implying since
there is no 100% solution to stop ALL cheating at the same time that
nothing at should be done to even try to reduce it? If so, I'm curious
as to why you are against implementing this incremental step at
reducing it -- which would appear to be a good thing for the contest
community in general. It wouldn't seem too difficult for you
personally to implement this based upon the description of your
station on your web page. And again, with what appears to be a minor
amount of work and cost anyone who thinks they have the possibility of
a score good enough for the Observers to take an interest and ask for
an audio recording is very likely to have the resources to afford
either of the two already proposed solutions.
So is your objection just on general principles, like "I don't want
any change to existing rules", or "I like to stir the pot", or...
what? What am I missing that is so evil in this rule that you aren't
supporting it? I spent years as a Nuclear Planner, a Site Manager, and
now am a Maintenance Planner at a Gas Turbine R&D facility and have
learned it is virtually impossible for anyone, not just me, to write a
procedure or rules to do a job the first time without having at least
one glitch. You define what the problem is, determine a way to
eliminate or at least reduce the problem to acceptable levels, write
up a plan as best you can, get peer/coworker feedback, revise the
initial plan, start the job, and adjust as needed during the work. We
seem to be at the peer/coworker feedback part of this process. You are
an active participant so I'm asking for your feedback. I just don't
understand why you think this is a bad idea.
And no, I am not involved with CQ nor have I been asked my opinion
about this by anyone. My interest is that I too am an active
participant in contests and if there is a valid point to not doing it
I would like to know and side with you against it. If there isn't what
I consider a good reason not to implement it, then I am for it.
Kevan
N4XL
On May 21, 2015, at 10:35 PM, W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
If we are going to start requiring recordings. Why not wattmeters
that write the peak value every 30 seconds or so to a disk with
cameras that watch that the meters are hooked up to the very last coax
segment going to the antenna system.
This should not be a big deal either.
On 5/21/2015 7:32 PM, Gerry Hull wrote:
"Diddly-squat"
That's how much resources are required to record a contest.
http://www.hamradiomap.com/qsorder/
QSORecorder works with N1MM, and records the content of every completed QSO
-- storing
an MP3 or WAV file with the file name YOUR_CALL_THEIR_CALL_BAND _DATE_TIME.
It runs completely separately from N1MM; it uses broadcast UDP to convey
the info, so does not interfere with operation.
It works with regular or plus.
When K2LE and I did P40LE in ARRL DX CW this year, I recorded the entire
contest. I did not even notice the disk usage,
though I only had about 20 GB free on my disk.
So, for anyone who can put together a station for a Top-10 effort,
Implementing recording should be an easy task.
73, Gerry
W1VE
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
Occasionally (certainly doesn't happen very often, I'll say that) when a
couple of the superstations in our area are not QRV, some of us in the
Maritimes have had totally surprise wins in certain contests. (not always
CQ,mind you- hi)
Some of us have even set records. I would say it's always a surprise for
whoever 'wins'.
Personally I do not own land in a top tier contest locale or can afford
that
kind of station (don't even have a tower up !) so using my very old first
gen Win-7 laptop as the shack computer and either 100w or 500w and a
vertical or low wires, I am not really geared up to usually either EXPECT
to
be in the top ten anything or technologically setup to record an entire
contest. The HDD is mostly full now, nevermind trying to figure out how to
record the full 48 hours.
Maybe someone computer savvy could weigh in on this thread and indicate to
the readership here just how much disk space and processor resources it
would require to even record such an event (CW&SSB).
(I am just assuming it's well beyond what a lot of stations are capable
of, top ten or not) It would be interesting to know. On the off chance
that PEI sinks*, what kind of evidence must folks in other parts of Canada
be prepared to submit to CQ if those 2 can't play?
Thank goodness I seldom go assisted as the computers logging program
stutters now if I have a full bore telnet feed from VE7CC running during a
contest.
Inquiring minds........Mike VE9AA
*for those of you that are humour impaired, this is a joke.
Mike, Coreen & Corey
Keswick Ridge, NB
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|