[CCF] [TOEC] SAC CW - Low Power and QRP results Europe(compared to HP Unassisted)

[Kim Östman]

Hi,

Mats, thanks for your positive thoughts. Also, thanks for your words of
criticism. I appreciate your passion for SAC and your desire to improve it
year by year!

Various kinds of cheating have been discussed at length on the CQ-Contest
e-mail list this autumn. May I start by quoting you from there as background
to the current discussion:

"We will NEVER solve the problem with Power Cheating through rules or
checking from the contest sponsors." ... "The Power Cheating can never be
enforced by contest sponsors - it can ONLY be changed by ousrselves!"
http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2011-September/095322.html

The discussion showed quite well that the world contest community has failed
to solve the problem. Thus, I wonder how the SAC CC could now suddenly have
a magic wand at its disposal to take care of it? :) But despite the
problems, catching different kinds of cheating (especially assisted, due to
the new rules) has been on the agenda of this year's SAC adjudication. Based
on the methods, tools, and data sources we used (in which there is certainly
always room for improvement, and suggestions are always welcomed), one
top-10 station has been moved from LP to HP Assisted on CW. Up to three
persons scrutinized certain logs.

You have presented allegations and demands to move LP->HP or disqualify
stations based on the score list. Your argument already began shifting when
Timo brought up additional variables, namely those of operating time and the
relative competitiveness of the categories. Let's add to that the non-linear
fashion in which score, QSOpts, and number of mults grow/saturate as a
function of operating time and geography in a contest like SAC (different
from CQWW, for example), and it is more complicated still. This doesn't mean
that eyes should be closed, but a simple look at the score list will not do.

You also said in this thread: "To be considered a professional Contest
Committee, the SAC CC must also expose themselves to the risk of being in
the hot fire for making some sensitive decisions of DQ or moving
non-realistic entries to other categories. This has NOT been the case with
the SAC 2011 organization. Despite attacking this complicated issue - SAC CC
2011 decided to close their eyes and avoid touching this hot potatoe..."

May I rephrase: The 2011 organization has not closed its eyes on this hot
potato, but it has not made those decisions that *you* wanted it to make.
Analyses based on various data sources have been conducted to get beyond
allegations for entries which were "flagged" by the CC. Decisions have to be
made based on solid argumentation and methodology, and if there is
insufficient evidence, allegations remain just that. As we know from working
life, managerial responsibility brings with it different perspectives and
things to consider when making decisions.

Again, thanks for your criticism, I appreciate it. We want to continue
improving. Still, the fact remains that contest organizers worldwide need
*concrete tools and methods* to tackle problems such as power cheating. Do
you have some to offer?

73
Kim OH6KZP
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ccf-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:ccf-bounces at contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Mats Strandberg
Sent: 5. marraskuuta 2011 17:46
To: Timo Klimoff
Cc: CCF Postituslista; TOEC
Subject: Re: [CCF] [TOEC] SAC CW - Low Power and QRP results Europe(compared
to HP Unassisted)

Timo,

This could be a valid point, but still does not make me convinced when
comparing Top-10 LP Unassisted with Top-10 HP Assisted.

Three or four of the LP unassisted Top-10 would also have qualified on the
Top-10 HP Assisted category.

The HP Assisted cateogry in SAC CW 2011 was a hornets nest... with serious
competition and many big guns using "a kW" and both skimmers and clusters.

To get the amount of mults that some of the LP unassisted achieved (with 100
Watts and no assiatance) is a "true achievement"....

Compare also LP Unassisted with HP Assisted to make up your minds.

73 de Mats LRR

2011/11/5 Timo Klimoff <timo.klimoff at dnainternet.net>

> >
> >It does not require a degree in Rocket Science to make a quick 
> >analysis
> and
> >realize that many of the LP scores are unrealistically high both with 
> >regards to QSOs and multipliers, compared to the same unassisted 
> >category in High Power.
>
> Dear Mats,
>
> for me this looks more like category activity issue, not power cheating.
> The
> winner of HP unassisted class CR6K operated only 11 hours - less than 
> half (and was a winner with clear margin)! Unassisted HP class has the 
> lowest level of competition now after establishing assisted class.
>
> 73, Timo OH1NOA
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOEC mailing list
> TOEC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec
>
_______________________________________________
CCF mailing list
CCF at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ccf