[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Busting Packet Cheaters CORRECTLY!

[ted demopoulos]

Hey!

For those of you worried about how CQWW decides who is a packet cheater 
based on our "5 minutes of thinking logic" - these guys have probably been 
thinking about this for YEARS, and erring on the side of caution. I'll bet 
my 80m stacked yagis (OK, I'm exaggerating) that they are only so far 
disqualifying the most blatant. And I'm pretty sure all disqualified deserve 
it!

73
Ted, KR1G



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


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


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Mon Jul 23 03:40:17 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 19:40:17 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Average QSO Points
References: <4.2.0.58.20010722115343.00a7db78 at pop-server.kc.rr.com> <3B5B0EFC.82251E05 at berkshire.net> <002901c112e4$c76c6de0$992216d5 at netcabo.pt>
Message-ID: <2ceb01c11320$cfae1c60$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


Ooops.

Jose, within your country you may not see much variation in average
QSO points, but there are some other places in the world where this is
not the case.  You don't have to compare, for example, IG9A to another
Italian station to find a big difference in average QSO points.  From
VE3, station effectiveness has a big effect on the capability to raise
the "average QSO points" figure from the 2 points you get for working
W's to the three points you get for working EU.  In Europe, a low
power station with fair antennas can expect a lot of one point
contacts, while across town another station works a lot of W1's, W2's,
etc.  Improving your station effectiveness for DX can double your
average QSO points from places like South Korea while simultaneously
doubling your multipliers (or better). "Average QSO Points" is
definitely NOT a constant for most hams in the world.

----- Original Message -----
From: "CT1BOH - José Carlos Cardoso Nunes" <ct1boh at mail.telepac.pt>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 12:30 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Why no Packet for SOAB



Just a simple observation regarding the use of packet  in CQWW
Contests.

Winning contests is about turning the highest score.

In CQWW contests:
Score = (Average QSO Points) * (QSO's) * (Multipliers)

In most geographical locations (Average QSO Points) is pretty much
constant.
Therefore the contest is won by maximizing both QSO's and Multipliers.

Allowing packet, and now let's imagine all the operators could work
all the
spotted multipliers in their geographical area, would turn Multipliers
into
another constant for that area.
The contest would loose one of the TWO variables.
It would turn basically into a RUN only event.

That is why Packet should not be allowed for SOAB.

But Packet is there. There is nothing we can do about it, so for those
wanting a less challenging category, or should I be politically
correct and
say different challenge, there is always SOAB Assisted where you are
free to
use it.

Some may say and what about SO2R. Won't that turn Multipliers into a
constant as well?
You need to know WHERE and WHEN to find those Multipliers and trains
your
skills for that, a lot different from just looking at a packet screen
where
everybody does your job for you, wouldn't you say?

73
José Carlos Nunes
CT1BOH / P40E


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


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


>From k0il at arrl.net" <k0il at arrl.net  Mon Jul 23 04:40:33 2001
From: k0il at arrl.net" <k0il at arrl.net (Ed - K0iL)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:40:33 -0500
Subject: [CQ-Contest] packet cheaters
Message-ID: <01C112FF.CC940E20.k0il at arrl.net>


On Sunday, 22 July, 2001 6:15 PM, Dale L Martin [SMTP:kg5u at hal-pc.org] 
wrote:
> > >I think the only cure is to allow packet spotting for everyone.
> Balderdash.
>
> "Everyone" does not have access to packet (on air or on Internet).

"Everyone" does not have "regulatory or financial" access to a lot of 
things:

1. Towers (Tall or otherwise may be regulated by cities or covenants)
2. Amplifiers (May be too expensive for many hams here & abroad)
3. Big Gun antennas, stacked arrays, rotating towers, etc... (Really too 
expensive)
4. Computers for logging (Poor guys in Cube are rebuilding "AT"s to log!)
5. a host of other things allowed by the rules that only some can take 
advantage of.

Shall we chop down all the "Trees" so that they're all equal?  Come on. 
 You need a better argument than "Everyone does not have access".

The best argument is that it is in fact using the assistance of other ops 
(spotters) so having a separate category from SO makes the most sense. 
 It's the "cheaters" problem that has everyone upset.  How do we spot them 
without falsely accusing non-cheaters and chasing off the average contest 
operators?  That's the big question!  Making it available to everyone 
nullifies the question sort of like legalizing pot eliminates the crime. 
 But the problem is still there.

Then again, what's a cheater get if he wins?  A certificate or plaque! 
 Wow, that's really worth risking your character for now isn't it?  Tsk 
tsk.

73,
de ed -K0iL


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