|Subject:||Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules|
|Date:||Mon, 25 May 2015 12:09:13 -0600|
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? Ed W0YK -----Original Message----- From: CQ-Contest [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: 24 May, 2015 14:39 To: email@example.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? PUNISH THE RULE BREAKERS Not everyone else! Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com 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 likeseeingtheir score in the results and enjoy beating their locals or friends.Let'scall them the "participant" class. (The third group might be people whogeton 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 theirjobbetter. 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 pointofskipping 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 logexactfrequencies, or record the contest, etc. That was never the intent. Should we create a special section of the rules that is focused only onthetop 3 or top 5 scores at the World and Continent levels for the major categories? Those who wanted to be considered competitors would followthespecial 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.Theonly 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 itright,the decision competitor/participant will be completely a decision of the entrant when they operate and submit their entry. This would not changethegame 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 theyearswith log padding, false multipliers, and unmarked dupes that contributedtothe final score. We also didn't have all of the convergence of Internetandradio that has contributed so much to activity and fun levels...-----Original Message----- From: CQ-Contest [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of W0MU Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 4:42 PM To: email@example.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, theopinions) 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 simplelogging 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 theyare 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@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
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[CQ-Contest] Modified Proposed Rule Changes, Dennis McAlpine|
|Next by Date:||Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW - Proposed rule changes., Carol Richards|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules, Ed Muns|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules, Joe|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|