[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules
From: W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 12:09:13 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
The audio recording requirement was not written well. It requires more computer power or an additional computer, It could introduce rfi issues into the setup and many other variables. It is far from simple for EVERYONE to do this. What happens if a computer crashes? RF interferes with the recording, etc etc.

Now if you want to target suspected cheaters and say, Hey W0 if you want to be considered for the contest we are going to require you to record the contest.

The log of the contest is substantially different than a full recording of the entire contest.

What is the reasoning behind expanding the club radius? This a great for us in Colorado as we might be able to better serve contesters in our region that were just outside the lines as it was previously.

I get the feeling the you guys, being the contest sponsors have a good feel feel for who may be cheating. Are those people being addressed personally or are we trying to write the rules to thwart those efforts and not have to confront these people one on one?

I think this is the crutch of the entire cheating mess. Most are unwilling or uncomfortable discussing it with those suspected because we are a close knit group and we don't want to rat out our friends.

On 5/25/2015 10:14 AM, Ed Muns wrote:
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

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
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

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 mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list

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