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

[Franki ON5ZO]

I'd like to openly concur with the issues Martin LU5DX raises about SOAB(A) 
and M/x when it comes to WRTC qualification.

Not that my opinion matters let alone be taken into consideration, but he 
should not be considered a lonely voice in the wilderness.

73 de Franki ON5ZO / OQ5M
http://www.on5zo.be/


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
To: "Dan K1TO" <k1to at aol.com>
Cc: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>; <wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: [wrtc2014] [CQ-Contest] WRTC-2014 Selection Areas


> 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