Yes, Mark;
Your interpretation is precisely correct.
73,
Bob W5OV
On Tue, April 18, 2017 7:48 pm, Mark wrote:
> Hi Bob
>
>
> If I may clarify your reply on this topic. Are you saying:
>
>
> 1. The Committee will only request audio recordings where they believe
> an entrant has breached the rules. 2. In this instance where the Committee
> asks for an audio recording and it is not supplied then they may DQ the
> entrant. 3. Accordingly an entrant will never be asked to supply an audio
> recording simply for the sake of it and then DQ'd solely because they
> cannot do so.
>
> If this is the case (and it sounds fair to me) can I suggest it goes in
> the FAQs?
>
>
> Thanks
> Mark ZL3AB
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Dave Edmonds <dave@pkministrywebs.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>> Thanks for giving the participants more insight into what's happening
>> behind the 'closed doors' of the contest. I'm an admin for the SCQP and
>> I
>> can identify with your philosophy etc.
>>
>> In early 2015, just coming off of the ARRL Centennial, I was working a
>> state QP. I read the rules and knew how to play the contest. After about
>> 6
>> hours into the contest when it got very slow, I self-spotted on the
>> cluster. I knew the rules, but after self-spotting on and off during
>> the Centennial, it was almost a habit. A second after I pressed the
>> "Enter"
>> key, I realized that I broke the rules and bowed out of the contest with
>> a higher score than the ultimate winner. We've all been there... It was
>> a lesson learned. What good is winning if you didn't play it straight.
>>
>> I've got a digital recorder hooked to the headphone jack of my IC-751
>> for recording purposes. My only problem is that battery life is short
>> and it's just one more thing to have to monitor during a contest..I'll
>> try to keep it going during the next WW or other major contest.
>>
>> 73s Dave WN4AFP
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:48 PM, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>>
>>> Seriously, in all of this, there is one way to avoid all of it. Do
>>> not cheat. It is as simple as that. If you do not cheat it will not
>>> be likely you will be asked for anything.
>>>
>>> If you do cheat, with the proliferation of all kinds of data
>>> available and SDR recordings on every continent, contest adjudicators
>>> can determine what was going on very easily.
>>>
>>> As has been seen this year, many more stations were caught and
>>> disqualified than ever before. Last year was the same. The trend of
>>> increasing disqualifications is likely to continue. If cheating is
>>> still rampant, then disqualifications will increase. Maybe, the
>>> higher likelihood of getting caught will reduce the number of those
>>> who will cheat next year? I certainly hope so. It would be nice not
>>> to have so many disqualifications.
>>>
>>> Remember too, that MORE warnings were issued this year than there
>>> were disqualifications! So, there could have been more DQs had the
>>> evidence been more compelling.
>>>
>>> The behavior of cheaters is that they apparently believe that it is
>>> impossible to "prove" cheating. While if we use the same standards as
>>> required in a court of law, we might not, but this is amateur radio
>>> contesting and we have a team of experienced contesters looking at
>>> all evidence available, and collectively, what is possible and what is
>>> likely is taken into consideration. Allowing for people who don't
>>> know better, or are beginners is also taken into account - if the
>>> entrants are forthright and helpful in the analysis.
>>>
>>> So, what do you do? Obey the rules. Do not cheat. You will likely
>>> get caught. If you happen to win something, and do not cheat, great!
>>>
>>> Those who won this year were not asked for recordings - because there
>>> was no reason to ask them. Others, who were warned last year about
>>> apparent cheating, and were explicitly told that if the behavior was
>>> repeated, they would be asked for recordings. One or more did not
>>> comply and their logs were converted to Checklogs as a result.
>>>
>>> The CQWW committee does not want to do this. Any thought otherwise
>>> is simply incorrect.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob W5OV
>>> CQWW Contest Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, April 18, 2017 1:10 pm, Dave Edmonds wrote:
>>>
>>>> Great comments... How about this scenario.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I start working the contest without a recording knowing that I
>>>> would not be able to give it a 'competitive' effort due to the fact
>>>> that my wife
>>> and
>>>> I
>>>> are attending a wedding on Saturday. We'll on Saturday morning I
>>> receive a
>>>> call from the wedding party that the groom ran away with the maid
>>>> of honor and the wedding was canceled..Now I'm not going to the
>>>> wedding
>>> and I
>>>> can devote my weekend to the contest.... Oooopppps... I can't be
>>>> competitive because I could win a top 3 spot in the USA and if I
>>>> win I could be DQ'ed.
>>>>
>>>> What do I do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A. Don't work the contest competitively (that's no fun).
>>>> B. Work the contest competitively and submit a check log (that's no
>>>> reward). C. Work the contest competitively, submit a log and bet on
>>>> the contest committee not requesting a recording. D. Blow off the
>>>> contest
>>> and
>>>> find another wedding to attend.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> Dave@wn4afp.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Mark <markzl3ab@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The CQ WW Committee blog post about audio recording is a bit of
>>>>> surprise to me. Up until now I had figured audio recording would
>>>>> only be an issue in Oceania for the serious entrants (i.e. entries
>>>>> with lots of QSOs and/or hours on the air). In Oceania a casual
>>>>> entry of 1-200
>>> Qs
>>>
>>>>> could easily put you in the top three of just about any single op
>>>>>
>>> single
>>>>> band category, assuming the category even had three entrants (I
>>>>> won the Oceania CW 40m QRP
>>>>> assisted category and set a new record with one QSO and two points
>>>>> a
>>> few
>>>>> years back). In its post the committee quotes the Asian 160m low
>>>>> power category. Looking at the 2016 SSB results there were no
>>>>> entrants in that category (assuming there wasn't an entrant(s) who
>>>>> was moved to
>>> a
>>>>> checklog for not audio recording) so any entry at all would have
>>>>> won
>>> it.
>>>>> In Oceania
>>>>> there was one entrant who made four QSOs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would pick most if not all ops who perceive themselves as
>>>>> casual would not audio record their entry (or even know they had
>>>>> to). Is it really the Committee's intention to DQ casual entrants
>>>>> who end up in
>>> the
>>>>> top three due to a lack of other entrants, if they do not provide
>>>>> an audio record? If so then I'd suggest the rules should be
>>>>> amended to make it clear that any entry competitive or not which
>>>>> ends up in the
>>> top
>>>>> three is subject to the audio recording requirement because
>>>>> casual ops will not consider themselves competitive. It will of
>>>>> course have the effect of decimating casual single category
>>>>> entries in this part of world (such as it is) by ops who just
>>>>> enter for fun but who do not want to run the risk of being
>>>>> besmirched by a DQ. A better way (and it seems to me contesting is
>>>>> heading this way in general) would be for entrants to be able to
>>>>> enter any category they like but designate themselves as casual or
>>>>> competitive. If casual then they would not need to provide an
>>>>> audio record but could still be
>>> listed
>>>>> in the results database for their category (assuming they comply
>>>>> with the other rules). However they would not eligible for a
>>>>> certificate which would go to the highest competitive entries and
>>>>> who of course would need to provide an audio record on request.
>>>>> Also only
>>>>>
>>> competitive
>>>>> entries would be eligible to set records and to be listed in the
>>>>> top entrant lists in the results write up. At least this way an
>>>>> entrant
>>> can
>>>>> make a conscious decision as to how they want their entry to be
>>>>> treated rather than run the risk of a DQ if they are unlucky
>>>>> enough to enter a category with less than three other entrants.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73
>>>>> Mark ZL3AB
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Edmonds
>>>> PK Ministry Webs
>>>> 864.288.6678
>>>> dave@pkministrywebs.com www.pkministrywebs.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Edmonds
>> PK Ministry Webs
>> 864.288.6678 <(864)%20288-6678>
>> dave@pkministrywebs.com www.pkministrywebs.com
>>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|