[CCF] Fw: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet - RD3A case
timo.klimoff at dnainternet.net
Wed Dec 12 00:11:33 EST 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tõnno Vähk" <Tonno.Vahk at gildbankers.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet - RD3A case
If a station is using packet and getting meaningful addition to his mult
count from it then it is also detectable from the log and he can be
disqualified. You can jump around in frequencies or do whatever you want, if
you keep hitting lately spotted mults too often it becomes suspicious, if
you start hitting it them all the time it becomes clear. For SOAB later into
the contest (like last 12 hours), once you cheat already, it becomes very
difficult to adhere to well planned cheating strategy and you start to hit
the spots too often or all the time. Let the following story be a good
example. I have posted this to a private reflector what I was strongly asked
to post it also to CQ Contest and thus I do it. RD3A (RD3AF) is a known
packet cheater in EU and so far has not been disqualifed yet. It is a great
sorrow and pity that an operator of that great skills and potential and huge
station is spoiling its reputation and future by platantly cheating with
cluster. It is a great pity that this has been so widespread in EU and
espcially former socialist block of EU but by bringing those issues up we
will clean the mess and make contesting a better place. I agree to most Jim
(N6TJ) is saying and at the same time urge hime and the others to bring
evidence to light and put more peer pressure on the cheaters until CQ
Committee will take appropriate action. Trying to lead the way here is my
letter about RD3A analysis to another relfector a month ago (this is ES5TV,
I have looked at the logs of CQWW CW 2006 EU top 10 SOAB HP stations. It
looks like that:
CU2A 6208 155 519
LZ9W 4608 139 474
G4BUO 3718 144 495
TM6X 3539 150 471
S5ØA 3510 160 483
RD3A 3978 164 555
ES5RR 4302 143 477
GD6IA 3904 132 453
TK5EP 4259 118 407
DL3YM 3449 141 439
I compared the worked S&P QSOs and worked S&P MULTS against the cluster
spots in the last 20 minutes before the QSO. S&P QSOs are determined as QSOs
that were on different frequency compared to previous and next QSO. That
means I could only do it with logs that had exact frequencies of QSOs.
Let's look at CU2A, RD3A, ES5RR and OH8X (latter being out of top 10 but in
CU2A worked 134 S&P QSOs and 116 of those were new multipliers.
RD3A worked 515 S&P QSOs and 209 of those were new multipliers.
ES5RR worked 470 S&P QSOs and 166 of those were new multipliers.
OH8X worked 558 S&P QSOs and 249 of those were new multipliers.
Now lets look at how big precentage of the worked multipliers had a recent
cluster spot on that frequency and I separate here the periods into 48
hours, last 24 hours of the contest and last 12 hours of the contest.
all 48h: 38.8% (38.8% of the mults CU2A worked in the contest as Search and
Pounce QSOs had been spotted on that frequency within 20 minutes before the
last 24h: 37.5%
last 12h: 43.5%
all 48h: 74.6%
last 24h: 85.6%
last 12h: 97.9%
all 48h: 27.1%
last 24h: 19.6%
last 12h: 27.3%
all 48h: 44.2%
last 24h: 40.8%
last 12h: 45.5%
So RD3A worked 48 new multipliers in the last 12 hours of the contest and 47
(!!) of them were recently spotted (within 20 minutes). Out of the 209 mults
that he worked in the contest 156 were recently spotted. That is way more
than any average non-assisted station and is a definite sign of using packet
It is logical that by the end of the contest operator gets more tired and
does not hide cheating any more and starts to jump from spot to spot.
Also, RD3A is using just one radio. No SO2R - he is S&Ping with one radio
between CQ-s. And even though he has by far the best multiplier count of all
the SOAB stations!
I have more proof for that from his log if necessary and I am very sure in
What do you think people of that? I say that he is really lucky that he was
not disqualified from CQWW 2006 but I am sure it will happen sooner or
later. We have seen those outrageous mult totals in other contests and
unfortunately after looking at this log it all became clear.
Maybe RD3A wants to explain why he forgot to claim ASSISTED?
p.s. after this letter I was asked if 20 minutes is a good criteria and I
took out statistics about 5 minutes also (altough cheaters tend to wait 5-10
minutes at least to hit a spot) and I accompanied it also with statistics
about moving mults which are quite selfevident:
TV> Anyway, 5 minutes stats are still quite convincing:
TV> all 48h: 10.8%
TV> last 24h: 7.1%
TV> last 12h: 13.6%
TV> all 48h: 33.0%
TV> last 24h: 39.4%
TV> last 12h: 41.7%
Guess how many mults did RD3A get with asked QSYs! 0 (ZERO!!)
QSYing mults in CQWW CW 2006:
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
steve.root at culligan4water.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 1:50 PM
To: hank k8dd; wc1m at msn.com
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
Exactly! How would you prove you WEREN'T using packet? If we knew what the
log checkers were looking for then we could avoid that behavior, but then
the cheaters would know too. The whole deal kind of scares me. Potentially
you could lose a whole weekend, a top score, and your reputation all in one
73 Steve K0SR
n and press F4 to send my call and it puts the call in
>the band map.
>Try a couple of times and don't work him - the call remains marked as
>the unworked color.
>Tune up ..... find a station .... press F4 .... goes in the bandmap
>.... work him and the band map changes the call to worked color.
>I continue up the band working some and some not.
>At some point I go back to the unworked stations in a random order,
>picking and choosing.
>Now will the log will look like I'm chasing spots (were they spotted?
>- I don't know). I tend to do that a lot .....
>Will that look like I'm cheating?
>But then I'm not a top ten contender .... at least not from MI.
>73 Hank K8DD
>On Dec 10, 2007 12:53 PM, Dick Green WC1M <wc1m at msn.com> wrote:
>> I don't want to give cheaters any ideas,
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
__________ NOD32 2659 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CCF