[CQ-Contest] spot-analysis

DL8MBS prickler.schneider at t-online.de
Fri Sep 8 02:26:12 EDT 2006

Some opposition against statistic methods argues that they may not 
deliver 110 percent proof. IMHO it could be eased if we had different 
penalties like every real sport. Soccer or football games were strange 
events if after a foul the referees could only send a player off or do 
nothing. So why not impose different point reductions for things looking 
like contesting-"fouls" after a thorough check - instead of the 
alternative "DQ or do nothing"? (and in sports penalties are spoken out 
loudly and displayed clearly for every spectator...). There may be a 
rest of uncertainty but that is part of the game in the 
milliondollar/-euro sports, too. Even professional referees have to make 
controversial decisions still disputed after the seventh replay... But 
the basic principle is totally undisputed in sports and making some 
referees even popular (I guess there are some other european readers 
missing famous italian referee Pierluigi Collina - who proved to know 
everything about rules when asked about his role as referee in his 
familiy: "I have two daughters - so there are no rules").

As long as we have completely uncontrollable categories like LP and QRP 
(and I have to admit I like them) we shouldn´t give up in categories 
with a chance to keep things at least as fair as possible. Controlling 
is not bad by itself - or why do organizers check logs?

W2EV´s proposal with dropping categories and only stating a set of basic 
information (Op-Time, power, antennas, SOxR, Cluster) is very appealing 
because it would reduce the incentive to cheat. But I suppose it will 
fail mostly due to the big appetite for awards. There was soooo much 
enthusiasm with the wave of CQ-awards in last fall...

Thanks for reading and best 73, Chris (DL8MBS)

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list