Totally agree Kelly,
Thank god this is not a hanging jury.
Presumption of guilt on the background of circumstantial evidence - or
worse: "This cannot be right because I cannot do it" is a terrible result
all round for contesting.
Contesters must stick by the old chestnut - Abide by the laws and
regulations that is signed with every contest log.
When we can no longer trust each other to do this then the methods of
adjudication must be harsher, sadly, we will see more of this in the future.
In reality is it time for the removal of the Classic SOAB class and meld
into SOAB(Assisted) ?
We as a hobby are supposed to be technologists and yet the very thought of
removing a category starts flame wars - because we have always done it that
way.
When you first sat the ham exam it was the entry into a new area that was
exciting and something that you felt you would learn and grow from, saldy as
we as a group are getting older the very thoughts of allowing technological
advantage in any form is being squashed by contest committee's and the
contest community.
For example - CQWPX - changing the rules to not allow a second multiplier
radio in Multi Single to Single radio only - why ? Because some people
worked out how to be very good at running multipliers on Rig 2.
This is counterproductive to setting up a great station - to hear of people
not wanting SO2R is another disappointing thread because this is tried and
proven technology. Get with the times fellows it's been around for years.
I am surprised that we don?t have to use a FT101 Yaesu with straight keys
and paper logs if some back ward thinking people had their way.
Are we stifling competition and competitor advantage purely for no other
reason other than jealousy ?
I hope not
73
Trent VK4TS
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Kelly Taylor
Sent: Sunday, 10 May 2015 4:25 AM
To: José Nunes CT1BOH; George via CQ-Contest
Cc: Stan Stockton
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A Comments, Data and Log Checking
With all due respect to Randy and the WW committee, it seems the entire case
boils down to two questions: How probable is it that a guy with 15 million
points is going to ignore an email threatening a DQ? And, Was it fair to
email a guy in or close to a war zone and request a response within five
days?
Given the likely answers are 1. Not very, and 2. Not really, should WW have
tried a little harder to contact Dim first?
Even if he is guilty, surely the right to face your accuser exists in
contesting, too. This is probably an opportunity for improvement for WW.
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 5/9/15 10:40 AM, "José Nunes CT1BOH" <ct1boh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stan and Kelly
Don't take me wrong, but I'm not going to elaborate more on
> TO7A log.
I was not involved in the checking of this log, I did not see the
> material
presented by the log checker(s), and as you can imagine, being a
> member of
CQWW CC, I'm not about to start a side log checking investigation,
> that has
been done, with the result we all know.
My post is beyond what TO7A
> did or not, my post was just intended to show
(using public data like RBN and
> logs) that log checking is far more complex
than it seems and taking:
- log
> lines without the context of the situation
- assumptions about the way the
> operator may or may have not operated,
without listening to his audio/video
> and SDR recording
- assumption of the way he stacks or not mutls, while doing
> dual CQ
is very misleading.
73 José
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Stan
> Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com> wrote:
> José
>
>
> When I looked at the log I
> estimated less than 100 S&P QSOs total out of more than 8,000
> contacts. Did I mess up and there are really over 600?
> You have the computer skills to say
> for sure. How many S&P QSOs were there and how many were new
> multipliers?
>
> TO7A log http://www.cqww.com/publiclogs/2014cw/to7a.log has
> 35 S&P "event"
> situations, that netted 638 QSOs, 225 countries and 69 zones.
>
>
> Here it sounds like there were 35 times he left a run frequency
> to S&P and
> each time "averaged" netting over 18 QSOs in the S&P mode with
> almost 300
> multipliers as a result... Misleading at the least, if the count
> is about
> 15% of your number.
>
> You must be counting all the QSOs and
> multipliers made on the S&P radio
> AND all the QSOs and multipliers from the
> run radio on another band until
> both radios were in running mode again?
>
>
> If for some reason it is important to know about how many QSOs he made on>
> the run radio while other was S&P, tell us how many of those 225 countries
>
> and 69 zones were from the several hundred stations who called him versus>
> the S&P QSO multiplier count.
>
> Remember TO7A only had 8 minutes and worked
> the 8 multipliers out of 293
> possible unknown stations on the band.
> Did
> the multipliers he worked sign their call every minute? Was it possible
> to
> go from one to another in the 8 minutes time frame? or was it needed to
> stay
> more than 8 minutes to get the calls in case they sign only every two
> or
> three QSOs like one would expect from juicy multipliers in heavy pile-up
>
> situations, with high rate, as can be seen from the public logs?
>
>
> I'll
> add a question to your list. Is it possible he already had the call
> signs
> in a band map from prior, short periods of S&P preparation and when
> the rate
> slowed just a bit he went through the list pouncing on them one at
> a
> time.
>
> Yes, there is a lot of work to be done to justify a disqualification
> if it
> is to be based on someone(s) belief or feeling.
>
> 73...Stan,
> K5GO
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 9, 2015, at 2:39 AM, José Nunes CT1BOH
> <ct1boh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is amazing to me, how some people jump to
> conclusions without deep
> diving into the data.
> Some just look at some log
> lines and feel free to say whatever, as if that
> alone would mean anything at
> all.
>
> First a disclaimer:
> Even tough I am a member for CQWW Contest
> Committee and have been involved
> in log checking, for the 2014 events, I did
> not participate in any checking
> process at all. Because of that, I feel free
> to comment.
>
> The following is done with just public data available on
>
> http://www.cqww.com/publiclogs/ and http://www.reversebeacon.net/raw_data/
>
> This is not a log checking analyses. It is just a brief look, an example,>
of
> the deep analyses needed to make log checking decisions
>
> TO7A is an
> extraordinary log that has two interesting characteristics:
>
> 1. Dueling CQ
> on two bands - No problem with that. Videos/audio provided by
> Dmitry on his
> youtube account show it well.
> 2. S&P "events" - Unfortunately, none of the
> S&P events are covered in his
> videos
>
> TO7A log
> http://www.cqww.com/publiclogs/2014cw/to7a.log has 35 S&P "event"
>
> situations, that netted 638 QSOs, 225 countries and 69 zones.
>
> I will look
> into just one of these 35 S&P events as an example.
>
> Event number 3 with 8
> QSOs on 80 meters. 8 QSO, 8 multiplers, three of them
> double mults (KH7XX,
> TF3SG, YN2CC)
>
> Event starts at 06:38 and ends at 06:46, just 8 minutes
> during day 1 of the
> contest. It should be noted that, before this small 8
> minute S&P event,
> TO7A had been already active on the band. He already had
> 50 countries and
> 10 zones. So this new S&P event, was not the type of, new
> on the band where
> every QSO is a mult, or with band marginal, where one can
> jump to sparse
> stations on the band, very easy to find, using a waterfall
> scope for
> example. At the same time of the S&P event TO7A is also running on
> 40. So
> this is classic SO2R activity - run on one band, S&P on another:
>
>
> TO7A station 1 is running on 40. Works 13 stations at 97.5 QSOs/H during
> the
> 8 minutes.
> TO7A station 2 is S&P on 80. Works 8 stations, all of them
> multipliers
> (OH0X, KH7XX, TF3XG, NP4Z, YN2CC, NP2P, VP2MDX, V47T), during
> the same 8
> minutes.
>
> With RBN data from Reversebeacon site, we can
> re-create a so call "TO7A
> band map", to show what was available and what he
> needed.
> Download RBN data, filter it by band, frequency, call, then cross
> check
> with log and with minimal work this can be done using excel
> spreadsheet:
>
> There were 293 station running on 80 meters at the time of
> the 8 minute
> period, from 3500 to 3600khz.
> This is about average 3
> stations per 1 KHZ span - a crowded band - and
> indeed it was, as one would
> expect from beginning of contest, day 1, with
> band open to Europe and USA.
>
> 60 stations spotted by RBN and running on the band, had already been
worked
>
> before, by TO7A, in his previous activity on the band:
>
> So:
>
> 293
> stations calling CQ and making QSOs on the band from 3500 to 3600Khz
> 233
> station are needed QSOs
> 29 station are needed multipliers
>
> But looking
> closer to those 29 needed multipliers, the times they were
> spotted (from RBN
> data) and the QSOs they made (using the public logs), one
> can see that 14 of
> them, even tough spotted on the RBN and on a "band map",
> were not available
> to work, by the time TO7A could have find them (remember
> TO7A log shows a
> steady up tuning during those 8 minutes, 06:38-3526,
> 06:41-3540, 06:42-3546,
> 06:42-3547, 06:43-3549, 06:45-3552, 06:46-3554,
> 06:46-3560).
> So, in the
> end, there were 15 possible needed multipliers
>
>
> So the bottom line
> is:
>
> TO7A is running on 40 @ 97.5 QSO/H
> TO7A is S&P on 80
>
> In 8
> minutes, he is facing 293 station that he does not know who they are,
> on a
> crowded band.
> 60 stations are dupes, 233 are new and 15 of them happen to be
> multipliers.
> He makes 8 QSOs, all of them multipliers in 8 minutes.
> He has
> to pick a signal out of the 293, stop and listen to QSOs finnish or
> CQ call,
> get each call, then call the station, then go to the next one,
> wait for a
> call,...,and so on. Or he "just" finds the mults out of the
> band...
>
>
> Again, this is just to show you guys, the type of data needed to look at
>
> logs.
>
> Remember TO7A had 35 S&P events like the one described above.... I'm
> just
> looking here, at one of them.
>
> CQWW Log checkers, also have
> additional tools, like SDR recordings, that
> will help check things
> further.
>
> Remember TO7A only had 8 minutes and worked the 8 multipliers out
> of 293
> possible unknown stations on the band.
> Did the multipliers he
> worked sign their call every minute? Was it possible
> to go from one to
> another in the 8 minutes time frame? or was it needed to
> stay more than 8
> minutes to get the calls in case they sign only every two
> or three QSOs like
> one would expect from juicy multipliers in heavy pile-up
> situations, with
> high rate, as can be seen from the public logs?
>
>
> Log checking is much
> more complex, goes much deeper and takes a lot more
> hours than most people
> think....
> A log that deserves attention need hour of manual work, hours of
> going
> through SDR files, hours of preparing the material, hours of peer
> log
> checker group discussion until a decision can be made.
> Please give
> credit to those who do it, that things are done in a
> "professional way" with
> much thought, much discussion...
>
> Just looking at a log line, and saying
> whatever, is not enough.
>
> 73 CT1BOH - José Nunes
> --
> José Nunes
>
> CONTEST CT1BOH - htt <http://www.qsl.net/ct1boh>p://www.qsl.net/ct1boh
>
> <http://www.qsl.net/ct1boh>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
>
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
--
José
> Nunes
CONTEST CT1BOH -
> http://www.qsl.net/ct1boh
_______________________________________________
CQ-C
> ontest 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
|