[CQ-Contest] [wrtc2014] WRTC-2014 Selection Areas

Sun Oct 20 20:25:59 EDT 2013

Hi Dan.
I really don't want to generate controversy at this time, considering
things are the way they are and it certainly is not going to change. But
anyways, and hopefully it may keep improving for future events.

The evolution of WRTC is something that cannot be overlooked, and I am
totally sure 2014 will be the best so far. I know how hard you all are
working and please don't take my words as detrimental to that big effort
you guys are conducting.  Or critisism to the 2014 event. That is not the
intent at all.
We all admire, must support and help as much as we can WRTC 2014.

Also, I want to make clear that I am not speaking because the qualifying
system has impacted me personally. I've decided not to qualify for personal
reasons before the selection criteria had been issued. I owe my family a
trip to the States, but not for WRTC, and as you know economics and a
freaking 10:1 exchange ratio keep our budgets very restricted.

Nonetheless, it would have been really easy though: 6 SOAB and 6 MS from
LP1H and that's it. But that is not the point.
I've been entering SOAB(A) since 2003. And one of the reasons for that, was
because of the high level of cheating, at that time from SOSB in SA. It
made no sense to try to compete against high power, cluster + friends
helping on the air efforts.
So well in SO(A), at least one of the factors for biasing results was
eliminated.

I believe that reducing SOAB to just pointing and clicking is sort of a
"punch below the belt". I know SOAB(A)s do study propagation, do master
SO2R, do practice RX, do everything SOs do, plus they don't lie about
packet utilization. In a contest with over 5300 Qs only 80 were made based
on the cluster information last year in my case. That was the amount of
pointing and shooting compared to the other minor skills to break the 10 M
points mark from deep SA.

But anyways, at least it's good to know what's the reasoning behind the
distinction between these two categories.

On the other hand, category hopping is TOTALLY under the WRTC organizers
control: Don't give any Multi Op class equal or more points than major SO
entry classes, that is, SOAB, SOAB(A), SOAB(LP) and even SOAB QRP.

Secondly: The cheating factor regarding DX Cluster abuse can be totally
eliminated and is also under organizers' control.

I understand that power abuse, ghost operators, log massaging, remote RXs,
fake locations and the like might be a little more complicated to
eliminate. I'm figuring it's sort of complicated to call ham radio
contesting a SPORT with all these in mind. And precisely, being a fact that
cheaters are mostly those trying to win something. Fortunately, the vast
majority that make up the big mass of stations active during weekends are
not pursuing anything but having fun, increasing DXCC, WAZ or WAS or other
awards counts, etc. Most of them don't cheat.

But what I don't really get is why we could not eliminate one of the
cheating factors, when the solution is so simple.

SO could still be SO if they want, SO using cluster can still do it. If an
SO determines he/she needs clusters to keep wining it will be a natural
process. But this fiasco will be eliminated for good.

Again I'm not speaking for myself. I won the CQ WW DX CW SOAB(A) last year
after trying for five years in a row. If SOAB and SOAB(A) were merged I
would have ended 10th or so. But again this has nothing to do with personal
situations or convenience, it has to do with doing all we can to make sure
results are properly adjudicated.

Regarding your last question. Yes I know two cases. None of them want to
disclosure their names/calls. I'd love to do the math for the rest, but I'm
lacking time.

All in all, I will now start entering plain SOAB. That category seems to be
where true contest operators fairly compete.

Best 73.

Martin, LU5DX

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 1:50 PM, <k1to at aol.com> wrote:

>
>  Thanks, Martin.
>
> While the Assisted categories continue to gain in popularity, the
> point-and-shoot skill is not what WRTC seeks to emphasize.  Yes, there is
> cheating out there.  Unfortunately, rabid competitors cheat in other ways,
> too -- excessive power, extra operator(s), etc.  The CQ WW Committee and
> other sponsors have come a long way in IDing those cheaters.
>
> Assisted scores were given a 0.7 "multiplier" in WRTC2010 qualifying, so
> we improved the chances of an Assisted op for 2014 at the 0.8 factor.
>
> And while there may be a few exceptions, most MS ops who claimed a winning
> score did more than just show up part-time.  Remember that only 2 ops from
> a MS could use that particular score, so it's not that 10 ops suddenly get
> rewarded for the work of a few.  And also remember that ops had to have at
> least half of their scores as SO, so nobody qualified solely on the basis
> of making coffee at their local MS.
>
> Category hopping is certainly not something we can control.  Some would
> view it as smart gaming.
>
> Can you give me an example of someone who failed to qualify who you think
> should have qualified, but was prevented from doing so by the selection
> criteria?
>
> 73, Dan, K1TO
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
> To: Dan Street <danstreet599 at gmail.com>
> Cc: CQ-Contest post <cq-contest at contesting.com>; wrtc2014 <
> wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org>
> Sent: Sun, Oct 20, 2013 12:46 am
> Subject: Re: [wrtc2014] [CQ-Contest] WRTC-2014 Selection Areas
>
>
> This is a great and solid explanation and I truly believe it is the
> foundation for the overall great quality of operators (both TLs and TMs)
> for WRTC 2014.
> I think there is a very positive trend in the outlining of WRTC rules: the
> best from the preceding event seems to be included in the rules of the
> upcoming ones.
> For instance, in Russia, all the stations were identically equipped in
> terms of aerials and terrain profile. It was amazing to monitor the
> stations and see that signal levels were almost identical.
> The selection criteria has been improved in several aspects.
> To me  the only exception being the distinction between SOAB and SOAB(A)
> in detriment of SOAB(A) against not only SOAB but also MS, SOAB LP, and
> equaling it to MS LP, M2 and even MM!!
> It seems as though WRTC considers SOAB and MS ops with better qualities
> than SOAB. Even a part time SOAB with a third or even a quarter of the
> score can beat a SOAB(A) who stuck his a** to the chair for 48 hours
> straight and even beat some MSs in terms of score.
> Not to mention this distinction, considering it's a race for something so
> valuable as a spot among the selected operators for the Olympics of Amateur
> Radio, only makes more room for cheaters to cheat.
> Hopefully this was not the case, but I dare anyone to solidly prove it. No
> one can.
> So for the sake of the true spirit of WRTC, lets be innovative and
> creative. Just don't stick to the "Just a boy and his radio approach"
> because that simply is something retrogressive in essence. And here we are
> not talking about a simple contest. We are talking about the OLYMPICS of
> AMATEUR RADIO.
>
>
> Another really bad thing that happened, was category hopping from
> competitors to avoid fighting in the same entry class as their competitors
> at their convenience. It was really sad to see that.
>
>
> WRTCers must be selected by their individual skills, so it's really hard
> to understand how a member of an  MS, or a part timer can score more than a
> full all out, 5 days off the job, months training to stay away effort. I
> simply don't get it.
>
>
> You tried to explain that to me Dan, but if you have a better explanation
> that whan you said to me over a year ago, I would be more than willing to
> know.
>
>
> Best regards to all and I'm sure we all have a blast in WRTC 2014.
>
>
> Vy 73.
>
>
> Martin, LU5DX
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Dan Street <danstreet599 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Given the recent flurry of postings, I want to present some additional
> facts...
>
> 1)  This is the first WRTC that divided the geographical lines so finely as
> to allow W0s to compete with only other W0s.  In the past, W0s have
> competed with at least the W5s (and guess who emerged on top).  So we
> thought we were doing something that W0s would appreciate.  Same for
> southern OC, SE AF, and countless other examples.  It's a lot of extra work
> to do so, thus future WRTC organizers might not be so precise.
>
> 2)  The activity generated by such clubs as the MWA and Grand Mesa led to
> enough logs being submitted in major contests that we thought W0 deserved a
> Team Leader slot at all.  Clubs are a great catalyst to boosting contest
> activity.
>
> 3)  In WRTC-2010, one Team Leader was unable to find a Team Mate in his own
> Selection Area and had to drop out as a result.  We chose to open up the
> selection to anyone anywhere in order to prevent such a scenario for 2014.
> Only a handful of TLs chose a TM outside their Selection Area, despite the
> much deeper pool of possible TMs that they could have chosen from.
>
> 4)  Specifically, Alex, KU1CW did well to honor his NA-10 group by first
> choosing another W0.  However, when that individual declined the
> invitation, Alex expanded his search.  Can you fault him for selecting his
> cousin, a guy who almost qualified for a TL slot in EU1?  It's easy to
> criticize someone without knowing the facts.
>
> 5)  Just to clarify for the casual reader, entrants in major contests had
> their scores only compared against scores in their own Selection Area.  So,
> making the Top Ten World is completely irrelevant to the calculation.
> Dividing the world into more Selection Areas than ever before gave more
> operators a chance than ever before.
>
> We have a very strong field of competitors for 2014, so the selection
> criteria must have worked to some small degree.  If the criteria weren't
> perfect, then we wish the next organizers well in getting closer to
> perfection.
>
> 73, Dan, K1TO
> Director, WRTC-2014
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wrtc2014 mailing list
> wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
> http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>