[CQ-Contest] packet cheaters caught?

[Scott Ellington]

More than once, a local packet user has attracted my attention by calling a
station (presumably) spotted.  I've then identified the station and worked him,
leaving the local still trying break the pile-up.  I'm sure this happens to
others all the time.  The timing makes it look like cheating, but it's not my
fault my neighbor has key clicks!

73,

Scott  K9MA


-- 
Scott Ellington
Madison, Wisconsin   USA

sdelling at facstaff.wisc.edu


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From Timo" <timo.klimoff at kolumbus.fi  Wed Sep  6 21:25:37 2000
From: Timo" <timo.klimoff at kolumbus.fi (Timo)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:25:37 +0300
Subject: Vs: [CQ-Contest] penalty
References: <5f.a1f26f9.26e7dc95 at aol.com>
Message-ID: <005601c01840$c08ccb40$90dbe5c1 at tklimoff>



> 
> Dear Whiners, Truth-Seekers, Misinformed, and other interested parties:
> 
> 1. The "penalty" has been around for approximately 20 years.  Before the Internet and the CQWWCC making UBN's public, not many knew about it.  That is far different than saying that the penalty did not exist.  How many Records currently exist that were made prior to 1980?  Are they records still because the log was bogus, or because nobody has challenged them that many years?
> 2. The penalty, when originally initiated, applied to dupes AS WELL AS to busted calls AND "N" calls.  "N" calls were found by manually cross-checking logs.  It was no fun at all.  The Penalty has always been applied the same way.
> 3. The "best" contesters have really, really good (low) UBN rates resulting in around 6% score reductions.  That is for the top ten in 3 of the major categories.  The median score reduction for ALL entrants (as per N6AA's post) is about 15%.  If this were school, the best guys/gals are scoring a 94% while the median is scoring around an 85%.  What is wrong with that?  These results are completely within the sanity-check range.  You can't blame the scoring method if over 50% of the entrants are scoring an 85% or better.  Does anybody really think that every entrant is perfect?

I only replay this message as from the side of my opion posted to CQ-Contest (it was: why the old records still are valid)...

I picked one random CQWW ... it was CQWWCW 1989. I looked "high claimed scores" against the final published scores.
If penalty already was there in 1989, then I will notice  6%+ score reduction (that time there was no super check databases and so on and much less talk about UBN etc.). Well,

SOAB Top6
Score reduction % of final score:
1. 1.0 %
2. 0.9 %
3. 0.02 % (3 qpts = 1 qso)
4. 0.0 %
5. 0.02 % ( 1qso)
6. 0.0 %

Multi-single Top5
1. 0.1 %
2. 1.5 %
3. 0.5 %
4. 0.0 %
5. 0.1 %

Multi-multi Top5
1. 6.2 %
2. 15.7 %
3. 0.0 %
4. 1.3 %
5. 1.4 %

The old records has their own merit, like Uwe Hahn's javelin record of 103 meters. But I don't like the idea that I have to work much higher score today to make a national record than in 1989 ( and still I might have a low UBN%)

73 Timo OH1NOA
PS: CU in WAE SSB (OH1F)



--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com