[CQ-Contest] Domestic Contest Spots/Cheating

korey.chandler@us.army.mil korey.chandler at us.army.mil
Sat Oct 15 02:25:37 EDT 2005

You nailed it, Ken.

I see the same things happen when I work major contests. Even when I don't have internet access (I've been in some remote areas), I can tell when the "Cluster Crowd" has discovered me. Sometimes the pileup lasts for hours and I suspect that I was spotted numerous times. On the contrary, when I later check the spot database, I may have been spotted only once during my run. I agree with your analysis that the pileup activity attracts passersby. This happened quite often during the All Asia CW contest.

Mal tends to make comments with no proof. Only a few proved to be mistaken. This is just another example.


Baghdad, Iraq

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
Date: Saturday, October 15, 2005 0:01 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Domestic Contest Spots/Cheating

> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 08:42:46AM -0500, Bob Naumann - W5OV wrote:
> > N7MAL said:
> > > Here is the maximum you are going to get from me. STOP asking 
> for 
> > more because it's not going to happen under any circumstances. <
> > 
> > Mal,
> > 
> > With all due respect, if you make a claim that there is rampant 
> > cheating, and cannot back it up, I think it is reasonable for 
> one to 
> > conclude that you are not being honest.
> > 
> > Your presumption that any single op that works you within 
> minutes of a 
> > packet spot therefore must be cheating is simply not valid.  
> Mal never said that he could or would conclude that any particular 
> stationwas cheating.  He merely said that the number of stations 
> submitting logs 
> as unassisted who worked him during periods immediately after he 
> was spotted
> seemed higher than reasonable.
> Let's consider what's reasonable...  Let's say that after being 
> spotted, 
> your rate doubles for 10 minutes.  For agument's sake, let's say 
> pre-spot
> rate was 48/hr and post-spot rate was around 90/hr.  So, in those 
> ten minutes, 
> you work roughly 15 stations instead of 8, for 7 additional 
> stations.  Now,
> of those 7 additional stations, at least a few probably also found 
> you 
> by S&P, not by packet spot.  Why?  If you're only working stations 
> at 
> 48 per hour, you're calling CQ a lot and depending on your CQing 
> style, 
> where you're beaming, etc., some station might be passing you by.  
> But at 
> 90/hr, there's less dead air, and stations from more places are 
> likely 
> working you, making it that much easier for someone to figure out 
> that 
> there's a station on frequency.  So, let's say 2 of those 7 were 
> S&Pers,for arguments' sake, and that the remaining 5 were 
> attracted to you through
> the packet spot.  If those five submit logs, they should be 
> submitting 
> them as either multis or assisted stations.  So 5 out of the 15 
> you work
> in that time period is 33%.  Since not everyone submits logs, what 
> you 
> need to do is look at those of the 15 who did submit logs and see 
> if 33% 
> of them submitted as multis/assisted or not.  (And that's a little 
> conservative, as probably some of the stations that find you 
> through 
> tuning are multis/assisted anyway.  The real percentage might be more
> like 40% or more - but leave it at 33% for argument's sake.)
> If, over time, and being spotted enough times to make this kind of 
> analysis 
> meaningful, you notice that fewer than 33% of those station who 
> work you
> within 10 minutes of a spot and submit logs in the contest are 
> submitting 
> as multis/assisted, then you might conclude that there's a 
> problem.  In 
> particular, if instead of 33%, the percentage was close to the 
> same as the 
> percentage in general for the entire contest, that would also be 
> telling 
> evidence of widespread cheating.  You'd still never be able to 
> identify a 
> particular cheater, but you could infer evidence of a problem.
> I'd love to see Mal work through his logs in this manner and 
> provide 
> some quantitative data, rather than just qualitative observations. 
> I think
> it would also be more interesting if it was done with logs from a 
> stationthat gets spotted more often than Mal, but not so often 
> that they are 
> being spotted constantly.
> -- 
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> kenharker at kenharker.com
> http://www.kenharker.com/
> _______________________________________________
> 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