Ed,
This is some thought-provoking commentary - thanks!
I understand your premise, but I think we have to keep in mind that the
universe of cheaters is just a small fraction of those who are serious
competitors - which, as you say, are also just a small fraction of all those
thousands who makes qsos in the contest.
The point being, there are relatively few people who need to worry about the
rules at all. Most people in the contest just turn on their radio - and
through their preferred method - find and work other contest participants
and that's all they put into it.
To "qualify" my opinion, in the big DX contests, I've been a serious
competitor as you describe since 1979 and have missed very few contests over
that span. I have mostly been at multi-ops and usually full-time.
Question 1:
I think that it is indeed sad and pathetic that there are those who cheat in
order to gain a hollow victory by:
1) single ops using spotting (packet, skimmer, RBN, etc.) and lying about
it,
2) single ops using more than one operator and lying about it, (sometimes at
more than one location)
3) having more than one signal on their air at one time (as applies to all
categories)
4) running excessive power (totally illegal power levels) and lying about
it,
5) running more power than your category allows (100w and claiming QRP etc.)
and lying about it,
6) in multi-single, operating without regard for band change restrictions
and then deleting the qsos from their log that violate those rules,
7) In multi-single, and multi-2, changing the times of qsos (rubber
clocking) in order to attempt to avoid band change penalties,
8) etc., and on and on.
Given time, I'm sure we could expand the list.
So, will we gain anything by combining single op and single op assisted? In
my opinion, the only differences are:
1) Those who love to operate without assistance will be forced to do so if
they want to remain competitive.
2) #1 in the above list will no longer be an issue for the contest sponsors.
As spotting use is only one of many ways of cheating, it makes no sense to
me to surrender to this one form of cheating and not to the others.
Question 2:
While we can recognize that there are differences between "competitors" and
"participants", I think that once we isolate the two groups through some
criteria, we will end up with a "participant" who seeks to be at the top of
the participant "heap", and he will push the envelope (cheat) in order to do
so.
Sadly, I think this is human nature. So, while the thought of segregating
these two types of entrants seems to be a good thing, sadly, I think that
the practical application of it may not achieve the desired goal.
So, in summary I think things should be left as-is for the time being.
W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Edward Sawyer
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 7:06 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Survey
First of all I would like complement Randy for the superb job of heading up
CQWW and being interested to gather opinion. For those of you asking.what
survey? Then unless Randy made a mistake, you didn't submit a log for CQWW.
There were 2 fundamental questions NOT on the survey which I think really
captures my feeling and also addresses the classic sailboat/marathon
analogies and the issues of combining the interests of 2 completely
different groups of participants that need each other for everyone to have
fun:
My first question: The Contest Committee has come leaps and bounds through
dedication and technology advances and investment - both of significant time
and money - to advance the ability to catch people not following the rules.
They have made changes to assist them in the accuracy of this (re: log what
you transmit because we are recording so if something changed after it says
something). However like all great technological advances - the more we
know the more we realize what we don't know or can't solve at the same level
of accuracy. Examples of this are things like power level, radius of
station antennas, log changes on S & P Qs, and complete accuracy on the use
of internet assistance. Would you favor accepting this continually
improving but far from perfect method but keeping the categories currently
in place or would you favor changing any area that we do not feel we can
completely referee to be merged into those that we feel we can? To qualify
your opinion, what is the most number of hours you have logged as an active
participant in the contest and what is the average of the past 5 years for
contests you have entered? (Note if you were Multi-Op were you there for
the entire contest and if you were single band - were you on for the entire
band activity?)
My second question: Like a marathon or open golf tournament or ocean racing
regatta, radiosport contesting consists of thousands of individuals
participating. Indeed in the latest CQ WW contests, over 5000 logs were
submitted per weekend with many representing more than one person involved.
It is safe to say that over 10,000 people are "involved" to some degree in
CQ WW on one of its weekends. Like anything in life, most are there for fun
or personal motives.personal best, improvement, just to finish, just to
participate etc. Only a small percentage, typically less than 10% often
less than 5% are actually IN for that weekend with an all out feeling of
competition vs their peers (peers having different definitions depending on
the event). Would you be in favor of a "competition class" vs
"participation class" ? "Competition Class" would preserve the current
categories but continue to increase safeguards for compliance some of which
could require station recording, power monitoring etc and invoke a small
participation fee to help fund the integrity for those so inclined and
"participation class" would not provide such increased level of oversight
but in fact increase the possibilities of "fun completion" among interest
groups through the use of "slice and dice tools" of the contest logs through
open log processing - ie "Black Hole QRPers" or "Bavarian Single Tower under
20m" or whatever.
In my opinion, these 2 questions get to the heart of the matter. We cannot
insure everyone out there is not cheating and/or bending the rules so we
either homogenize it down to that which we can - which is essentially one
power category, all assisted, one signal at a time vs more than one, and no
restrictions on antenna circle/property/remote receiving or are we accepting
continuous improvement and the love of the game for those in seriously and
preserving it. And are those in seriously willing to step it up to protect
(including financially in the form of station monitoring like recording and
a power monitor for example and possibly a small fee to help the monitoring
cause to the benefit of all).
And finally, what do you view as seriously competitive in a contest like
CQWW?
By the way, this example could be applied to other contests that you love
like Sweepstakes, NAQP, WAE, WPX, ARRL DX etc.
My votes? For question one, keep them and accept they are not perfect but
greatly improving over time. My max is 45 hours and I average 42. For
question 2, yes I would opt in for competition class if it is the way to
preserve the sport and to "belly up" with others if that is the majority
opinion of those who are truly competing vs just having a lot of fun and
that's it (which we all do from time to time).
Respectfully submitted.
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
|