Please start naming names and let the cleanup begin.
Maybe we need an anonymous tip line?
That is the crutch of the problem we are all "friends" but don't want to
rat them out so nothing changes.
W0MU
On 4/13/2017 7:44 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|