Hmmm. That Georgian wine works wonders :-)
I believe only e few can speak with the authority of being part of the task
force that makes producing CQ WW results a reality.
You were part of that team and it is pretty clear what you describe.
Look at how selfish some contesters are:
There is a big hole in the rules, that some "iluminated", created long time
ago by saying if you use packet: you are assisted!
Anyway, that big hole did exist long ago, before packet clusters. When
phone alerting was not allowed (how in heaven could that have been proved)??
None of the top contesters long ago wanted to be classified as "assisted",
for several reasons. One of them is the name of the category itself. It
gives the idea that you are not as proficient at doing something, as those
who are not in that category.
Second of all, the assisted category certainly has a very small plaque
program, and there are really some nuts out there that give their lives for
a plaque.
So some of them, probably several of them started cheating.
It was only recently when top boxes and band by band brk were introduced
for SO(A) in the results.
Worst of all. WRTC penalizes being assisted, so despite what you say about
being able to trace packet cheaters, even some of them take advantage of
that big hole to achieve more WRTC points.
But anyways I will end up accepting contest organizers need to keep SO and
SO(A) separated, so that many contesters can keep enjoying the pleasures of
finding mults by tuning a VFO knob, even if it's at the expense of making
the contest or at least the top scores adjudication something that's fake.
It really hurts to see many devoted helpers spend countless hours, while we
all know there is still a great deal of packet cheating going on.
They often say: well let's remove power categories and operators categories
too. because that cannot be proved either.
Well, exactly. That is how the contest was born in 1948. The fairest
contest of all time. One category. Very simple rules. That's it.
The complexity added to make the contest more and more popular removed a
great deal of the virtue of it.
Now, a serious contester, with one of the most impressive contesting
backgrounds I can think of, contest director of the two biggest contests,
throws an idea. Honest idea, simple idea, beneficial idea; and the old VFO
fanatics start their defense. Some of them even saying they will stop
entering the contest.
If CQ WW has 7000-8000 entrants submitting their logs, I guess it's worth
to have 50% of that in the future if the contest evolves towards being a
true contest, not something that is called that way, but it is not.
I believe utlimately a contest sponsor wants to ensure the contest they
conduct is something that respects participants by being able to validate
the final results to its most possible extent. And that, is certainly way
above personal likes and dislikes of the entrants.
Vy 73.
Martin, LU5DX
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Tõnno Vähk <tonno.vahk@gmail.com> wrote:
> :))
>
> After having a good laugh about Randy's so very proper answer and after
> reading the comments after my posting and after drinking 4 bottles of very
> good Georgian wine (saperavi) with a friend in a car an a business trip
> continuation from 4L to EK this night i would like to add following
> comments:
>
> 1. SO(A) vs SO scores comparison is total waste of time. OF COURCE SO(A)
> can
> ceteris paribus achieve higher scores EASILY by having 20+% higher
> multiplier count. Anyone telling different does not know what he is talking
> about. Please cut the crap. And of course assistance (according to the
> rules) works one-way - you either use it or not.
>
> 2. I respect Steve's (N2IC) comments a lot. At the same time it is all
> about
> the preferences. My vote of combining the categories is purely my opinion
> and a rather selfish one as you see. I think the contest organizers have to
> make a decision seeing how they can please a greater number of people while
> being able to do provide a proper service.
>
> 3. As pointed out, albeit it being possible to detect RBN/packet cheaters,
> it takes a lot of time and I realized the amount of time I have put into
> this in the last ca 3-4 years does not justify the sacrifices I have made
> regarding my family and professional work. As Steve pointed out - I decided
> to quit CQWW CC after seeing that the work I do is often neglected and
> ignored. I can only wish strength to Randy to reform the rotten CQWW
> management system but it does not mean that I wish to jump back into this
> and thus I wish (selfishly) that the SO and SO(A) categories would be
> combined.
>
> I don't critize anyone for having a different opinion and fighting for SO
> categories. It is all about the public opinion but don't let yourself be
> fooled of the current statistics where many casual ops enter defult SO
> category inspite using cluster.
>
> 73
> Tonno
> ES5TV
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Randy Thompson K5ZD
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:45 PM
> To: 'Joe'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
>
> Just for discussion purposes, how about if I give you 5000 to 8000 logs.
> Then how easy is it?
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> > Of Joe
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:36 PM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted
> >
> > It should be easy - MM, M2, MS, SOHP, SOHP(A), SOLP, SOLP(A), QRP,
> > QRP(A)
> > - What the heck is so hard about that? Anyone?
> >
> > AGREED 100%
> >
> > Joe WB9SBD
> > Sig
> > The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> > Idle Tyme
> > Idle-Tyme.com
> > http://www.idle-tyme.com
> > On 1/28/2013 8:29 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> > > If contest committees are spending time to check on the use of
> > > assisted in the non-assisted class, then the logical conclusion is
> > > that it would give the cheater an advantage. Otherwise why bother.
> > > So, it is clear that it has an effect on the outcome. And it has
> > > had an effect on the outcome.in at least one recent CQWW, the HP(A)
> > > category outscored the HP category. I am quite sure it wasn't the
> > first time.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So why is this topic so suddenly being floated by some very familiar
> > > names in the contest circles? Fess up folks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Both categories are big and popular in all power categories. Why is
> > > there a need to change it?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I completely agree with an early part of this thread that every
> > > contest should have an assisted category and to not force assisted
> > > operators into the Multi-Single category just for using packet or
> > > skimmer. That is as unfair as forcing single ops to compete with
> > > operators with global assistance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It should be easy - MM, M2, MS, SOHP, SOHP(A), SOLP, SOLP(A), QRP,
> > > QRP(A) - What the heck is so hard about that? Anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ed N1UR
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
|