[CQ-Contest] Non-assisted & Assisted

Tue Jan 29 11:06:31 EST 2013

Right. That's the case. And that is how CQ WW DX Contest was born in 1948.
http://www.qsl.net/ct1boh/cqww/1948.PDF
Scores where listed in descending order by zone. No distinction of ops,
power or any other thing that cannot be inforced.
In 1949. Single Ops where splitted from Multi Ops and Single Band entry
categories where created.
Muti Ops where just Multi ops. Not mention to # of transmitter.
No power disticntions.

Being realistic, the 1948 and 1949 where the closest to a "cheating proof"
contest. Then complexities added to the rules to increase participation by
creating more and more categories simply created situations that cannot be
proved at all in most cases.

If you want to simplify rules: One Callsign, One Transmitted Signal on a
given band for at least 10 minutes. Not even a second band for mults. No
more multi nothing. Wanna use packet? up to each entrant. Want to have one
o two hundreds ops in your operation? up to you. (but you can only have one
and only one signal at a time being transmitted regardless of the band
which is the only thing that can be proved).

Power? Not even mention to it. Up to each local  communications authority
to enforce that.

Logs deadline, the shortest possible.

I wonder if CQ removes every, single plaque, and publishes scores in
descending order. Just that, without further separation of categories, what
will happen.  I guess not much. Most people will just get on the air to
have fun and will still be generous enough to send in their logs to perform
log checking.

Vy 73.

Martin, LU5DX

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM, <ve4xt at mymts.net> wrote:

> I have to side with Bob on this one.
>
> If the potential to cheat is that great, are we going to remove every rule?
>
> Can't enforce QRO: so do we eliminate LP, QRP?
>
> Can't enforce MO: so do we eliminate all single-op categories?
>
> Can't enforce the 500-foot rule: so do we eliminate that, too?
>
> The only way to guarantee no cheating on unenforceable rules is to
> eliminate all unenforceable rules. So everybody would have to operate high
> power, have assistance available, have ops to switch out when tired and use
> as much real estate as possible to have a chance.
>
> No, thanks.
>
> If some piece of scum can't cheat on assistance, he'll just find some
> other way to cheat. Read the fable about the fox and the scorpion. The
> cheaters are the scorpion.
>
> 73, Kelly
> ve4xt
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 8:18, "Bob Naumann" <W5OV at W5OV.COM> wrote:
>
> > Rick,
> >
> > While I can appreciate the time you've put into your analysis, I have to
> sum
> > it up as follows:
> >
> > -   Because we cannot trust anyone to be honest, we all have to
> surrender to
> > those few who cheat and give up on the traditional un-assisted single
> > operator category.
> >
> > Is this really what we want? Are we all really that dishonest?
> >
> > Some opinionated comments below:  **
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > I guess I'm in the minority, but I'd like to voice my support for Randy
> > K5ZD's suggestion to merge assisted and non-assisted.
> >
> > My reasoning:
> >
> > 1. Assistance works in both directions: When you're running and someone
> > spots you, you're receiving the benefit of assistance even though you may
> > not be connected to a cluster yourself. Since the bulk of QSOs tend to
> come
> > from running rather than S&P, I suspect this is one of the main reasons
> why
> > unassisted scores are still higher than assisted.
> >
> > ** Not really - unassisted scores are higher because the challenge draws
> the
> > best talent. I also don't buy into premise of the non-assisted person
> being
> > assisted because those who are assisted call him. Assistance does not
> work
> > both directions. It is one-way only.
> >
> > 2. You may want to compete against other unassisted stations, but you
> can't
> > know for sure whether they're not assisted or just saying they aren't.
> >
> > ** See my summary above.
> >
> > 3. The rules that make someone be "assisted" are fairly arbitrary and
> hard
> > or impossible to enforce. If I left my PC upstairs connected to a
> cluster,
> > but never referenced the data during the contest, am I assisted? What if
> I
> > accidentally left my logger connected to a cluster for the first few
> minutes
> > or hours of a contest, and glanced at but didn't seriously use the data?
> > What if I was connected to cluster, but only worked the contest for a few
> > hours and spent the entire time running?
> >
> > ** Which contest has a rule about assistance that is "fairly arbitrary"?
> I
> > would like to see one.
> >
> > ** Unless you use the information from the cluster/network/skimmer you
> are
> > not assisted - by definition. Is there any contest rule that would cause
> one
> > to conclude that any of these non-use of assistance scenarios as you
> > describe would be considered assistance and therefore would be cheating?
> >
> > ** Enforce-ability is a "red herring" in discussions like this. There are
> > many rules that cannot be enforced in the traditional sense of finding
> > evidence which leads to a specific penalty. QRO is another clearly
> > "unenforceable" rule in that sense.
> >
> > What if I'm connected to a local Skimmer, but I'm only using the data to
> > determine propagation?
> >
> > ** Since in this scenario, you admit to "using" the information, you
> would
> > be assisted. This is the key - are you going to be honest about it?
> >
> > I have my own opinion, but what if the Contest Committee investigates and
> > disagrees?
> >
> > ** If the entrant says he didn't use assistance, they have to go by
> that. If
> > they find evidence otherwise, he's going to be disqualified.
> >
> > 4. It's one less thing the Contest Committee would need to investigate
> and
> > enforce.
> >
> > ** Again, see my summary above.
> > ** The other thing is that many people "imagine" that it must be
> impossible
> > to detect packet usage. Well, it is not impossible. Cheaters do and are
> > getting caught.
> > ** While it is reasonable to presume that someone could cheat very
> minimally
> > and get away with it - say, by working one packet spot multiplier per
> hour
> > during the entire contest (48 cheated mults!) we have to consider: is
> this
> > possibility sufficient reason to change the landscape of contesting in
> this
> > way?... because of a few low-life cheaters? Is that what we really want?
> >
> > If the consensus is to retain the differentiation of assisted vs.
> > non-assisted, then perhaps non-assisted stations should be required to
> > register beforehand, so that clusters won't forward spots for their calls
> > during the contest. Then they would be truly unassisted. Silly, right?
> >
> > ** It is silly, but only because someone could "register" and then go
> ahead
> > and cheat anyway.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > ** Well, not really.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Bob W5OV
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>