[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules

To: "'Joe'" <nss@mwt.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules
From: "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com>
Reply-to: ed@w0yk.com
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 09:14:26 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Requiring an audio recording punishes everyone?  Are all contesters being
punished because they are required to submit a log to substantiate their
claimed score?


-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Sent: 24 May, 2015 14:39
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules

But the problem I see with this is,

OK I fall into the "Participant" Class for sure. But if I should have 
the Universe shine on me and my station to the point that I actually 
would place near the top by some freakish happenings of the ether gods. 
And because I never ever usually place anywhere like this I did not 
record.  so even tho I went by all the rules and did better than the 
majority it counts for nothing because some other guy cheated?

This freaking stuff DOES happen too. I usually go really pretty hard in 
our local WIQP and place in the top 10 or so usually. but never ever 
near the top.

BUT in 1989 those ether GODS shone brightly on me and I took first 
place. Never got close before 1989 and never got close after `1989

So if this rule was applied to the WIQP, I would have been DQ'ed 
becauase I did not record?


The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
On 5/24/2015 3:04 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
> The discussions on this reflector have clearly demonstrated the challenge
> for contest administrators and rule development.
> There are really 2 (maybe 3) classes of participants in a contest.  There
> are the guys who spend the time and money to travel/build/operate with the
> intent of being competitive at the world, continent or national level.
> Let's call them the "competitor" class.  Then there are the rest of the
> participants who just want to work stations and have fun.  They like
> their score in the results and enjoy beating their locals or friends.
> call them the "participant" class.  (The third group might be people who
> on but don't submit logs.)
> There is a desire among the competitor class that they are competing on a
> level playing field.  They are willing to put up with shorter deadlines,
> complex rules, and even recordings if it helps the log checkers do their
> better.
> The participant class sees all of this extra verbage in the rules (and on
> contest reflector discussion) and is put off by it.  Perhaps to the point
> skipping the event.  This is not good for anyone.
> Some of the proposed rule changes were directed at the most serious
> competitors.  As we saw here in the reflector, people would not read or
> understand the details of the rule and assume that everyone had to log
> frequencies, or record the contest, etc.  That was never the intent.
> Should we create a special section of the rules that is focused only on
> top 3 or top 5 scores at the World and Continent levels for the major
> categories?  Those who wanted to be considered competitors would follow
> special rules.  Those who just wanted to participate and have fun could
> ignore them.
> Thanks to computers all submitted logs are checked in a consistent way.
> only purpose of the competitor class rules would be to provide tools that
> direct behavior and enable better enforcement.
> Watch any major running marathon race and you will see a small group of
> 'professional' racers who go out first and are watched closely (including
> drug testing).  Then there are the tens of thousands of participants who
> just want to enjoy the satisfaction of completing the race.  They run for
> their own personal reasons.
> Is it time to create this concept for radio contesting?  If we do it
> the decision competitor/participant will be completely a decision of the
> entrant when they operate and submit their entry.  This would not change
> game over the air for anyone.
> Randy, K5ZD
> PS - In the days of pencil and paper, the log checking was not nearly as
> comprehensive.  I think it is safe to say there are many logs over the
> with log padding, false multipliers, and unmarked dupes that contributed
> the final score. We also didn't have all of the convergence of Internet
> radio that has contributed so much to activity and fun levels...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> W0MU
>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 4:42 PM
>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules
>> In the day of the pencil I think many of us had to go over the logs to
>> make them legible!  I doubt the logs were poured over as much as they are
>> now but would doing this be a rule violation today?
>> When so many people have issues with the way the rules are written, we do
>> have a problem.
>> How are we to judge the writing of a rule when we don't have a clue what
>> they are trying to stop.
>> The process is broken, so we get rules that people clearly do not
>> understand.
>> K5ZD hit the nail on the head with the dual decoders.  It probably exists
>> today and will only get better and better down the road. Decoding
>> software seems to be taking giant leaps and bounds.
>> On 5/23/2015 9:42 PM, KQ2O via CQ-Contest wrote:
>>> Personally I have never understood why the rules (or before rules, the
>> opinions) treat post contest (let alone during contest) editing of logs
>> before submission as a no-no. not talking about padding of course, but
>> correcting typos. I always thought the contest was about how many folks
>> you could work as well as multipliers and related strategy - NOT about
>> your typing skills. Seems to me if you notice an error in your log after
>> the contest (or during), you should fix it so it conforms to what you
>> actually did during the contest, who you REALLY worked or the REAL
>> exchange, not leave the wrong info in the log.
>>> besides affecting your score, plus penalties, failure to fix a simple
>> logging error also penalizes the guy on the other side of the qso who did
>> nothing wrong! he/she gets a NIL + penalty.
>>> as for recording the contest, seems to me we are going way overboard on
>> "security". this is a fun hobby not a life and death operation. can't
>> help but think this comes from the TO7A debacle. I think imposing another
>> requirement on very many contesters when only a very few are cheaters is
>> foolish, especially since the cheaters always find workarounds - e.g.
>> excess power, remote receivers, etc., none of which are detectable,
>> ordinarily, to continue on their ways. probably will figure out how to
>> workaround the recording as well. would make much more sense to impose
>> stronger "punishment" when someone is caught cheating - e.g. TO7A type
>> cheater should be banned for life from all contests run by same sponsor
>> (and maybe other sponsors would ;piggyback), and have any prior
>> submissions retroactively DQed, and records expunged. lesser offenses
>> would have appropriate penalties.
>>> as an aside, seems like the log reviewers are very expert at what they
>> are doing even without recordings, and have developed fine technology to
>> detect rule breaking. they are to be commended.
>>> Hank  KF2O
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>