[CQ-Contest] Interesting new rule in EUHFC

[Jeff Maass]

As an outsider looking in (I've not been a EUHFC
participant), all the discussion of the new "log
exact frequency per QSO" rule seems to dance around
the real points.

  1) It's a Very Stupid Rule Change.

  2) It's unfair to a subset of those participating.

  3) It would have no effect on controlling
       perceived cheating.

As hard as it seems to be for the EUHFC rule
promulgators to believe, there are a *lot* of
contesters still who use one or more radios without
computer interfaces (unmodified TS930, TS940, TS830,
C-Line, etc.), especially as second radios. Manually
recording exact frequency for each QSO would be slow
and inefficient. Requiring it is not presenting a
level playing field for all participants.

Contest sponsors should be working on ways to include
*more* Amateurs in their contests, rather than driving
them away with ill-conceived rules that *pretend* to make
it possible to eliminate cheating!

I'd hate to see any thought of including this useless
and counterproductive rule in any *other* contests.


73,

  Jeff Maass  K8ND




> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Mirko Sibilja
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 11:52 AM
> To: Tautvydas Misiûnas; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Interesting new rule in EUHFC
>
>
> >   Sorry,but as i understand N6TR does not support exact frequency
> > printing.So no chance to operate then.
>
> TRLog #does# support exact frequency printing, and there does
> exist program
> to convert such a LOG.DAT into Cabrillo format (written by OK2RR,
> but am not
> sure). But, RA1AAU software (the most popular among EUHFC competitors)
> doesn't support radio control & frequency printing at all, so lot
> of people
> will be at lost.
>
> >   I understand motivation of the organizers:they are trying to
> fight with
> > continiuous cheeters year by year ,but in blind manner.So FQ printing
> could
> > make their life easier .But not ours unfortunately.
>
> Still you will stay a winner and still you will get an award, you
> just won't
> get a plaque. Problem of cheating is very serious (not just in EUHFC, I
> think), and (such a way we done in EUHFC), unfortunatelly
> punished ones are
> honest operators with high level of ham spirit rather than cheaters.
>
> So far (as for EUHFC), nobody has been DQed without a proof of cheating,
> but, sometimes, it is difficult to find the proof, even when you
> #know# that
> particular station cheated. We even recorded (in real time) operating of
> some suspicious stations. Just one (random) example. Station XXX worked
> DL***, then followed five CQs without takers (in approx. 5 second
> intervals), then followed Qs with OK1*** and G3***. In the log, between
> DL*** and G3*** there were logged four different contacts (and, G3*** and
> OK1*** Qs in XXX's log were reversed).  Main doubt was whether
> XXX used two
> radios on the same band and worked those four Qs in S&P mode on different
> part of the band while CQing on running frequency, whether those Qs were
> added after the contest, or whether there was second station & operator at
> the same or even remote location. If exact frequencies were logged, there
> wouldn't be any doubts. (Btw, intervals between CQs were too short to
> believe that operator at XXX  S&Ped at the same time as he called CQ at
> running frequency. And, it is not the sole example, either for particular
> (XXX) either some another stations, not mentioning another cheating
> techniques.
>
> Anyhow, we would be sorry if Timo, Ted and another guys choose
> beer instead
> of operating in the EUHFC. :)
>
> Mirko, S57AD
> One of EUHFC log-checkers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>