[CQ-Contest] Get out of jail free card

Joe Subich, W4TV w4tv at subich.com
Tue Mar 11 22:56:25 EDT 2008 


> Therefore I would propose that all CW (and SSB) contests 
> include prohibitions against any form of artificial CW (or 
> voice) detection and copying. 

Unfortunately, that horse is not only out of the barn but out 
of the pasture and already half-way to town.  Writelog has 
included multiple signal CW decoding for 10 (?) years or more.  
There are a very large number of ("out of the money") contesters 
using either Writelog's CW decoding feature or using other CW 
reader software (CW Get and MixW both come to mind) along side 
their other contest software. 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim George
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:51 PM
> To: Kelly Taylor; wn3vaw at verizon.net; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get out of jail free card
> 
> 
> This issue has me concerned about the future of contesting, 
> especially CW 
> contesting, my real interest. Now that I think about it, I 
> agree that we 
> should not have to record the contests, or to list the frequencies 
> (although it is recommended if possible). I will offer part 
> of a direct 
> email from W4PA (I am pretty sure Scott would not mind) where 
> he makes the 
> following observation:
> 
> "Given the history of non-interference over technical 
> developments, my 
> feeling is that it will be allowed for unassisted single ops, 
> and that will 
> be the end of finding packet cheaters."
> 
> Scott is correct. If we allow machines to copy the CW for us, 
> it opens up a 
> whole Pandora's box of issues. A Skimmer code reader, with real time 
> frequency links and real time text covering signals over a 
> broad swath of a 
> band would require any serious competitor to adopt this 
> technology or be 
> left behind. It makes any "signature" of packet cheating 
> almost impossible 
> to detect. It's feasible from a technological standpoint. For me, 
> personally, I think that would end competitive contesting. It 
> has to come 
> sooner or later, I suppose, but I don't want it to end this way.
> 
> Therefore I would propose that all CW (and SSB) contests include 
> prohibitions against any form of artificial CW (or voice) 
> detection and 
> copying. Let RTTY and other digital modes lead the technology in that 
> direction. Stay with "brain decoding" of CW and voice, and strive to 
> preclude cheating based on sophisticated decoding and packet 
> assistance. I 
> believe that this just might be the place where we say that 
> technology, per 
> se, will not be allowed to take radio sporting off the 
> historical track of 
> mental and physical capability and determination. There is 
> precedence: golf 
> (limits on balls and certain clubs) and baseball (wood bats), 
> for instance.
> 
> Jim George N3BB
> 
> 
>   At 07:00 PM 3/11/2008 -0500, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> >As much as I have full and utmost respect for Jim and his 
> abilities, I 
> >have to side with Ron on this one, not just for the reasons that Ron 
> >elucidates so well, but also for the fact that it amounts to the 
> >presumption of guilt, which goes against everything we've strived to 
> >create in today's society and violates tenets that date back to the 
> >Magna Carta.
> >
> >Presuming the guilt of everyone for the sake of a handful of 
> cheaters 
> >is a complete perversion of natural justice.
> >
> >We would fight to the death if the police tried such a tactic on 
> >something meaningful like homicide or fraud, why do we give in so 
> >easily when it applies to something as trivial as amateur radio 
> >contesting?
> >
> >It is also why I'm opposed to any proposal that requires complete 
> >recordings of contests.
> >
> >Harrison Bergeron's got nothing on Winston Smith.
> >
> >(One's a Vonnegut reference, the other is Orwellian.)
> >
> >73, kelly
> >ve4xt
> >
> >ps: Jim, I hope this doesn't mean I can't stop by sometime 
> when I'm in 
> >Austin...
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
> >To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:28 PM
> >Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get out of jail free card
> >
> >
> > > Oh?  Really?
> > >
> > > So what you're telling us is that anyone running an older radio 
> > > (like a Ten Tec Corsair, or a Drake TR4C-Sherwood, or for that 
> > > matter any radio that doesn't have a computer interface) can't 
> > > compete for an award because they don't have the capability of 
> > > storing the QSO frequency?
> > >
> > > Thanks.  Nice to know I'm DQ'd from winning anything 
> before I turn 
> > > the radio on.  Way to go.
> > >
> > > Sorry Jim.  In your zeal to ferret out cheaters and 
> cheating, you're 
> > > also severly impacting those of us who manage to be somewhat 
> > > competitive with equipment that didn't just come off the 
> boat.  Or 
> > > are you saying that only those who can afford to buy the 
> latest and 
> > > greatest deserve to compete?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> > > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Jim George
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:46 AM
> > > To: Joe, K8FC; Scott Robbins
> > > Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get out of jail free card
> > >
> > >
> > > Good point. This is a key. It will be important for the contest 
> > > sponsors to require the frequency of the QSOs be part of the 
> > > database submitted in the Cabrillo files. That should make a 
> > > "signature" clear. The upcoming RDXC does just that.
> > >
> > > Jim George N3BB
> > >
> > > At 02:03 PM 3/10/2008 -0600, Joe, K8FC wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>snip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>  it seems to me that any log
> > >>submitted by a station using the tactics you have outlined would 
> > >>obviously show like a sore thumb.  Let's say the station was 
> > >>bouncing around using
> > > the
> > >>skimmer output,  the log would show the various frequency 
> > >>transitions in a short period of time.  No way a non-assisted 
> > >>station would be S&P up and down the band and logging qso's one 
> > >>right after another.  To me it would be very obvious.  
> Effective S&P 
> > >>methods deem that you cover the band in a linear fashion 
> as to not 
> > >>miss the possible mults.
> > >>
> > >>73's
> > >>
> > >>/joe k8fc
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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