[CQ-Contest] Suggestions not to the next CQWW Contest Director butto top CQWW Competitors
n6tj at sbcglobal.net
Thu Sep 13 23:44:55 EDT 2012
Please tell us how this will address your possible cheating "opportunities"
1) and 2) that you listed below vis a vis 1) "another operator sitting next
to them to feed them rare multipliers and/or help make QSO'S,
2) "They used another operator to fill in, while they take a nap". .
A half dozen WRTC's have LEGALLY demonstrated the power of both of these,
and any serious contester who believes this hasn't happened, or isn't
happening today, I contend to be in a serious state of denial.
And it will be interesting to observe how your suggestion 4) re: illegal
power and multiple amplifiers into multiple amplifiers will be adjudicated
At least two or more of said operators should at least help your peer group
ensure they get their log posted to your robot at warp speed, Jose, whether
legal, or not.
Jim Neiger N6TJ
From: "José Nunes CT1BOH" <ct1boh at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:43 AM
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Suggestions not to the next CQWW Contest Director
butto top CQWW Competitors
> I found Yuri's post
> http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/2012-09/msg00100.html very
> Yuri's suggests to the future new CQWW Contest Director four new rules
> top 5 competitors in the CQWW should adopt:
> 1. Pre-registration of category
> 2. Two days log submission
> 3. Audio recording of Contest
> 4. Video recording of Contest
> Some are very easy to implement 1.2.3. Number 4. is more difficult
> These suggestions demonstrate the belief among some top competitors that
> some world winners did indeed cheat to obtain their #1 position.
> This cheating can be due to the fact that:
> - The used i) packet ii) skimmer iii) another operator sitting next to
> them to feed them rare multipliers and/or help make QSOs
> - They used another operator to fill in, while they take a nap
> - They used programs like SH5 that produce probable busted QSOs lists,
> e-QSL web site to check calls claiming QSO with them that don't match
> logs and or in conjunction with contest recording to fix busted calls
> - They used too much power or multiple amplifiers per transmitting
> - They add non existent QSOs with rare multipliers
> ... The list goes on.
> An extraordinary performance, an extremely low error rate, etc., sometimes
> are the signs of an extraordinary operator or a paltry cheater.
> A careless operator can go very fast and forget about corrections or ask
> for repeats if he can fix things later. Dramatic improves in the final
> error rate is very suspicious.
> I think it is very well known by now that SDR recordings of the total 48
> hours of the contest, of all bands and frequencies are becoming available
> to contest organizers. The following link in my post (don´t click on it
> because it is a 600MB file, instead right click and save it to your disk
> case you have broadband Internet access
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/69915136/B2_20111126_010000_7091kHz.wav is an
> example of a SDR recording of the CQWW Contest on 40 meter, day
> one, between 01:00 and 01:15z. All the stations that were active on the
> contest can easily be checked by a Contest Committee. You also need to
> download free spectravue program http://www.moetronix.com/spectravue.htm
> listen to the SDR file and control the "SDR Radio". Its very fun to have
> CQWW Contest playback
> So Yuri suggestions make indeed very sense.
> It should also be noted that the 2012 CQWW rules
> http://www.cqww.com/rules.php have two new rules that tries to address in
> depth one of the problems I mentioned above, i.e. fixing busted calls
> the contest:
> Rule 1: XII Log Instructions (...) The callsign sent by an entrant during
> complete exchange, must be logged as sent by the entrant(...)
> Rule 2 XIV Deadline 1. All entries may be sent within 5 days after the end
> of the contest (...)
> Of course in 5 days a lot of things can happen, but with new rule 1 above,
> an operator that systematically fixes busted calls after the contest with
> the help of recording to avoid log checking penalty (and we know
> this was happening listening to SDR recording and comparing the recording
> with the log) WILL BE CAUGHT!
> But I like you suggestion to even make log deadline shorter for top
> competitors. I will defend that rule change within CQ WW Contest
> But until that happens, why don't we engage in a peer group program.
> For example, the top 5 CQWW SOAB CW stations in 2011 CW Contest were:
> EF8M (RD3A), PZ5T(VE3DZ), CR3E(CT1BOH), P40W(W2GD), 8P5A(W2SC)
> I have personally visited all these stations except PZ5T, and I know they
> all have Internet access at the station or at very nearby hotel.
> So lets all agree to send the contest log to CQWW robot withing 1 hour
> after the end of the contest.
> We can do this. We don't need to wait for a rule. It is very easy and
> a powerfully message to all competitors.
> The rule can come later, but with a peer move, we can act together and
> Here is my log - Clean.
> Perhaps other top competitors can come together and join this peer group.
> So what say?
> This post is BCC to EF8M, PZ5T, CR3E (myself), P40W and 8P5A personal
> 73 José
> José Nunes
> CONTEST CT1BOH - http://www.qsl.net/ct1boh
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest