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
dave@pkministrywebs.com
www.pkministrywebs.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|