[CQ-Contest] Domestic Contest Spots/Cheating
David Robbins K1TTT
k1ttt at arrl.net
Fri Oct 14 07:05:52 EDT 2005
Its no secret that mal doesn't like packet or anything to do with it. so he
will take any opportunity to point fingers and make packet and those who use
it look bad. He said he had lots of examples, published one and got soundly
rebuffed I think... how about the rest mal, they just as convincing? Or do
you need more examples to show that single data points in a complex
statistical world like contests don't prove cheating?
Just a case to note, when I publish my packet analysis after a contest I
leave out much more than I put in. what you see in those reports are just
the 'obvious' ones, the 99% sure something is wrong level. there are many
more in every contest that rise above the 50% suspicion mark that I ignore
because the pattern is not convincing. When contest log checkers request
the raw data they may be able to add the other side of the puzzle and find
more but even looking at it from the relatively large pool of spot data from
the whole network can't find everything. looking at a handful of specific
spots and one contest log can't prove anything.
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bob Naumann - W5OV
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 13:01
> To: 'Cq-Contest Reflector'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Domestic Contest Spots/Cheating
>
> Mal,
>
> If I understand you correctly, you assume that someone is cheating if they
> work you after you were spotted? How far after a spot do you extend that
> belief? Is it a "within x minutes after a packet spot everyone I work is
> a
> cheater" thing?
>
> How do you know that the person did not just happen to tune by or perhaps
> might hear the mini-pileup that sometimes results from a packet spot and
> stop to work you?
>
> I would like to understand how you reach this type of conclusion.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: N7MAL [mailto:N7MAL at CITLINK.NET]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:10 AM
> To: Ken Widelitz; Cq-Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Domestic Contest Spots/Cheating
>
> What an interesting posting Ken. In a single posting you validated what I
> said about my participation in the contest and the fact that I had been
> spotted several times on the cluster. You then proceeded to make the
> majority of the rest of your posting about you and your effort.
> Unfortunately and sadly, very sadly, Ken you managed to get some facts
> mixed-up. Because you got your facts mixed-up I am going to show you, and
> others, exactly how well I have last years SS documented.
> N2IC Steve in New Mexico posted this information:
> W6ZZZ 3563.1 N7MAL 0430 07 Nov
> 2004
> It is a copy of a spot during the SS showing at 0430Z W6ZZZ spotted me on
> my
> run freq.
>
> At 0436Z I worked K6LA on 3563, he sent me number 628 and I sent K6LA my
> number 262.
> Ken submitted his log as a 'B'(single op).
> Ken in his own words claimed to have not worked me.
> Yet he did work me and worked me a few minutes after I was spotted, what
> an
> amazing set of coincidences...!!...(also the QSO is confirmed on LOTW) I
> never did any S&P on 75m only a run freq.
>
> I'm not accusing Ken of anything. Ken has been around a long time and is
> an
> excellent contester. He shows up in my master logbook 15 times in many
> various and different contests since the year 2000. He doesn't need packet
> spots to find and work me 300 miles away. OOOORRRR
>
> This is exactly why I won't publish names and
> callsigns........................................
>
> MAL N7MAL
> BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
> http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
> http://geocities.com/n7mal/
> Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
> It's already tomorrow in Australia
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Widelitz
> To: Cq-Contest Reflector
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:57
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Domestic Contest Spots/Cheating
>
>
> Mal, N7MAL, complained about being worked by stations in the single op
> category after his station was spotted in SS & NAQP. In his post he
> stated
> "If it happened once, or maybe even twice, it might be coincidence but
> over
> several contests it is no longer coincidence but cheating."
>
>
> While watching the Angels/White Sox game I compiled the following
> statistics
> from 2001 - 2005 regarding ALL of N7MAL's reported operations from the
> ARRL
> web site, the CQ-CONTEST 3830 archives and DX Summit:
>
> YEAR/Contest QSOs Spots
>
> 04 CW SS 477 5
> 03 CW SS 309 3
> 02 CW SS 367 3
> 01 PH SS 77 0
> 01 CW SS 220 0
>
> 05 CW NAQP 360 1
> 04 CW NAQP 492 1
>
>
> I would note the following:
>
> 1. In each contest I made considerably more QSOs and was spotted fewer
> times. Why is this significant? Because, especially in SS, and
> especially
> on
> Sunday, "new blood" is much desired. I know I am constantly tuning the
> 2nd
> radio looking for "new blood." Every serious SS competitor is doing the
> same
> thing. Given, generally, in the last few years only 2 bands have
> significant
> activity, if you are SO2R, you are tuning just one band. You will find a
> new
> station relatively quickly without cheating.
> 2. If I hear a pileup - or see one on the bandscope, it attracts my
> attention, without the use of packet.
> 3. There is a category of Unlimited in SS. That is a single op assisted
> category. It is becoming more popular and those single ops DO get to
> jump
> on
> packet spots legally. Spots of "new blood" gets attention from this
> category.
> 4. The sample size of spots about which N7MAL is complaining is VERY
> small.
> However, given the small sample size, if the same single op station
> worked
> N7MAL in 2002, 2003 and 2004 within a few minutes of his being spotted,
> it
> would raise my eyebrows.
> 5. In checking my own logs, I see I worked N7MAL in 2001 when he had
> zero
> spots. I didn't work N7MAL in 2002, 2003 or 2004. Guess I wasn't tuning
> the
> 2nd radio hard enough.
>
> 73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list