The organizers have a real dilemma - disclose your evidence and the way
it was gathered, and you're simply giving cheaters a blueprint of how to
evade detection next time.
I suspect, as an old policy wonk, that the really hard part is figuring
out where to set the threshold for taking action. Obviously every guy
who forgets to put his radio in split mode and accidentally transmits
out of band a couple of times during a 48-hour contest shouldn't be DQ'ed.
You can see wide signals (and quantify how wide) on any SDR, on either
CW or SSB (or RTTY for that matter. It's easy,but I agree that a
quantitative standard is needed, both how wide and how much of the
time. If somneone says, "Yeah, I had a problem, but I fixed it as soon
as someone told me", that's easy enough to check
Proving use of assistance is much harder. At least back in the day of
human spotting, you could develop a quantitative measure of how quickly
a station was getting to stations once they're spotted, and say with
some confidence which stations were using spots. But today, with the
RBN (or a local Skimmer) filling your bandmap, how do you discriminate
between a really good single op running 2 VFOs or 2 radios and one who
is using assistance? A cheater would probably have to do some dumb
things to get caught, such as always jumping on new mults as soon as
they're spotted, regardless of frequency.
And so we come back to the threshold question. Particularly when you're
starting a crackdown, with lightly tested technology, do you immediately
nail everyone you *think* is cheating? Or do you hit only the most
egregious the first time, and get tougher as you get better at using the
tools you have available?
I trust Randy and the committee to handle this tricky business as well
as anyone can.
73, Pete N4ZR
Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
<http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
out the Reverse Beacon Network at
<http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.
On 5/7/2015 10:02 AM, Stan Stockton wrote:
Randy,
There is a lot you are doing for the "sport" that is great work.
However, whether we like it or not, we have an unwritten rule that basically says "We may
subjectively choose who we "believe" broke the rules, even without absolute proof. We
can choose whether or not to disqualify the entry, request that the accused submit evidence in
attempt to prove innocence and still subjectively choose whether to disqualify the entrant
regardless of proof submitted".
I'm in the camp of....I don't like it.
A quote from Caddy Shack comes to mind but wouldn't be politically correct in
this particular instance.
In my opinion, it would be better if the subjectivity of these types of
decisions was eliminated from the process. There are several ways that I can
think of to know with near 100% certainty that someone was using assistance
other than that provided by a band scope and a directive antenna. They would
use an objective, software analysis of every single operator log.
Now we are adding another subjective area for possible DQ - signal quality
without definition of what constitutes a bad signal or duration of the problem
during a 48 hour contest. I can think of two instances in recent history where
prominent, high profile stations had a serious problem and have concern that
the subjective decision making process would come into play while others were
penalized.
OK, this Caddy Shack reference/metaphor is alright.
The thing no "decent, upstanding member of a society" wants is for anyone to
ever have fear of entering a contest because the rules are adjudicated with a lot of
subjectivity while other gophers seemingly dig with impunity.
73...Stan, K5GO
On May 6, 2015, at 11:06 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net> wrote:
Dmitry,
It appears you are not receiving the emails that I am sending to you. Since
you are reading the cq-contest reflector, I will attempt to use this path to
reply to you.
Below is the email I sent on March 6 notifying you of the disqualification
of your TO7A entry.
I had also sent an email on Feb 1 asking for recordings of portions of your
log. Perhaps you did not receive it.
I also replied to your email from May 3, but that must not have made it
through either. Do you have another email address that would be more
reliable?
73,
Randy, K5ZD
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Thompson K5ZD [mailto:k5zd@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:42 AM
To: 'dx@ut5ugr.com'
Subject: TO7A in CQ WW CW 2014 - Disqualified
Importance: High
Dear OM,
I am writing to inform you that the TO7A (op UT5UGR) entry in the 2014 CQ WW
DX CW Contest is being disqualified. You entered in the Single Operator
category (V.A.1). This category does not allow use of QSO alerting
assistance.
The definition of QSO alerting assistance is in rule VIII.
2. QSO alerting assistance: The use of any technology or other source that
provides call sign or multiplier identification along with frequency
information to the operator. It includes, but is not limited to, use of DX
cluster, packet, local or remote call sign and frequency decoding technology
(e.g., CW Skimmer or Reverse Beacon Network), or operating arrangements
involving other individuals.
CQ WW Rules: http://www.cqww.com/rules.htm
Based on analysis of your log, we believe that you did use QSO spotting
assistance (such as the Internet, DX cluster, RBN, etc.) to help you find
QSOs.
You have five days to appeal the disqualification and provide any
information about your entry. After that time the decision is final.
The best evidence that you could provide to us is a recording of your
operation.
Your entry is disqualified only for the 2014 CW contest. You will be welcome
to submit an entry in the CQWW Contest in 2015.
73
Randy Thompson, K5ZD
Director - CQ WW DX Contest
email: k5zd@cqww.com
web: www.cqww.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/cqwwdx
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Dmitry Stashuk
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 8:50 PM
To: Ken Widelitz
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW 2014 TO7A.
Hi, Ken.
No any supporting documentations exist. No any reason was reported. In
violation of chapter XII.C.2 of CQ WW contest rules nobody from contest
committee did Email me about any issues. I have never receive any answer
to my Emails to the contest committee.
73's Dim UT5UGR/TO7A
Enjoy some videos of TO7A in CQ WW CW 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD1qr51cV-s.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Widelitz" <widelitz@gte.net>
To: "'Barry'" <w2up@comcast.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW 2014 Results
Not only a lot of DQ's. The #1 SOABHP claimed score TO7A (UT5UGR, op)
was
DQ'd.
I would really like to see the reason(s) and supporting documentation
for
that one.
73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT
_______________________________________________
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
|