You say "To establish RBN analysis as a reliable means of determining
power cheating — were it even possible — would require extensive,
controlled experimentation" which I read - "we do not have reliable means
of determining power cheating yet". Does it mean we give up and let it
blossom?
=I didn't say that, did I?
May be my limited knowledge of English made me to misunderstood what you
mean. Sorry about that. Do you mean that we do have reliable means of
determining power cheating?
=What I am saying is the RDXC method is far from beyond reproach, and that
if we are to develop means of detecting cheating, it's =going to take a
whole lot more than examining the RBN data of one contest.
I do not know the details of RDXC method therefore I am not in a position to
discuss it. May be their method is a mistake. May be not. The fact that they
do not disclose it may mean anything from -"we don't want cheaters to know
the details" to " it is too complicated and we are unable to explain it in
foreign language"
=But beyond the absurdity of the RDXC decision, do we really want a
situation where to be competitive, nobody can be barefoot?
Putting aside the word "absurdity" describing something we both do not know
much about, the answer is No we don't.
=Is that really going to serve the contesting committee at large, or only
the narrow interest of those at the top?
=Why not eliminate all classes entirely, so the only people who win are
those with mega multi-multi stations?
These are not my suggestions. But let me ask you now. Don't you think that
this discussion will lead some potential power cheaters to the conclusion
that power cheating is undetectable and could not be proved. Therefore come
on, run high power and then send your entry as QRP. We cheaters are well
protected by the opinions of every acknowledged expert on CQ-contest forum
. Don't you think that after this discussion no other contest sponsor would
dare to DQ someone for power cheating. Never. Is that what we want to
achieve?
73, Igor UA9CDC
=73, kelly, ve4xt
73, Igor UA9CDC
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mymts.net>
To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
Hi Igor,
As every acknowledged expert on this forum has pointed out, so many
variables contribute to differences in signal strength that pinpointing a
power difference as the sole cause, based only on simplistic RBN analysis,
is absurd.
Using an absurd approach in the absence of one that isn’t is beyond
ludicrous. It is patently unfair.
That the RDXC won’t respond, that it apparently moved the goalposts every
time it was challenged (from constant power cheating on all bands to
cheating only on some bands to cheating only on some bands for periods
here and there) certainly suggests there’s more to this than a simple
misunderstanding of data.
It’s like the Salem witch hunt, where officials would drown suspected
witches: if you lived, you were a witch. If you died, congratulations, you
weren’t a witch, but sorry about that whole ‘death' thing.
To use P3F as a test case is as absurd as the drowning test. To establish
RBN analysis as a reliable means of determining power cheating — were it
even possible — would require extensive, controlled experimentation, not
the persecution of one amateur.
73, kelly, ve4xt
On Oct 5, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kelly,
I am saying that we should treat this case as a possibility to work out
universally accepted methods of pinpointing power violators. That is if
we want to keep power categories separate. And that is if we want to stop
proliferation of cheating. RDXC made an attempt. Some people found their
approach to be incorrect but nobody yet suggested no alternative.
73, Igor UA9CDC
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mymts.net>
To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
Igor,
Are you saying that just because we have not come up with a proven means
to determine power cheating, we should merely accept the results of an
irrefutably flawed analysis?
Even the chief promoter and grand poobah of RBN technology has stated
using RBN analysis to determine power cheating is absurd.
73, kelly, ve4xt
On Oct 5, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not going to be on any side of the argument. But we all know that
power cheating exists and proliferates. It has become especially acute
after the introduction of the new WRTC selection rules which allowed LP
category compete against HP for the slot in WRTC.
IMHO RDXC should be commended for pioneering the battle against power
violations even though their attempt is not fully approved by some.
RDXC can be criticized for their approach but can critics offer other
reliable methods of fishing out power violators. I do not think that a
100% reliable method exists.
Does it mean that contest community should not pay attention to power
violations? I do not think so. Otherwise, why have different power
categories in the rules when these rules cannot be enforced.
The simple solution would be to drop separation by power and have all
the participants compete in one power category. But would such a
radical step be to the benefit of the contest community? Would it
increase participation? I think not.
Then why don't we as a community use this precedent and try to find a
solution? Let's work out methods of verification of power cheating that
would be acceptable by a majority of the participants. This will be to
the benefit of all the contest sponsors where power categories exist.
Disclaimer: I have no relation to RDXC committee and not competing for
slot in WRTC. I just like the art contesting and want make better.
73, Igor UA9CDC
_______________________________________________
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
|