[CQ-Contest] WRTC2018 Qualifying

Fco. Luis Delgadillo xe2b at outlook.com
Tue Dec 2 16:09:22 EST 2014 

Martin
I totally agree  with you on the selection criteria  issue. 
The one  for NA # 9  is totally biased towards the people who activate islands on zone 8.
The differences are  even worst  for NA# 9 : Combining  Zones 6, 7, 8, 9 and VP9 ???
  Are you kidding  me?   If  that is  the case, why not even the whole CA and SA continents? 
Propagation wise , It also a whole world of difference between such  zones
Any whimpy station on the caribean will do more in 8 hours  than a full  lenght effort on zone 6. 
Just take a glance to the historic scores, (except for a few  illegal operations  held by some current record holders)

I'm very dissappointed and hope the organizers objectively review this issue as well yours.

Luis XE2B







> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:10:22 -0300
> From: lu5dx at lucg.com.ar
> To: ve4xt at mymts.net
> CC: kzerohb at gmail.com; cq-contest at contesting.com; wa5rtg at gmail.com; sawyered at earthlink.net; k5zd at charter.net; sm6lrr at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC2018 Qualifying
> 
> Hi Kelly,
> Yes. There is whole universe of difference between being at 8P5A and PX5E.
> Not even N5TJ can even come close to Tom operating from Barbados if
> Jeff was operating from Sergio's!
> There an astronomic geographic and mult status difference in your example.
> From Barbados you can run at 250+ for almost 48 hour straight. That is not
> possible AT ALL from zone 11, 12 or 13. Not even from PY0F!!
> 
> Vy 73,
> Martin, LU5DX
> 
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt at mymts.net> wrote:
> 
> > A tiger isn't going to lose his stripes just because you took away the
> > distinction between assisted and non-assisted.
> >
> > Cheaters will cheat. If it's not by claiming unassisted, it will be by
> > using
> > too much power, by listening during off times, by using an Internet-linked
> > remote receiver, by organizing schedules via email and any number of other
> > cheats.
> >
> > Eliminating an important distinction between two different skill sets is
> > like advocating intercourse to combat teen pregnancy.
> >
> > One isn't better than the other. They're just different. Better scores
> > through assistance are not automatic. If you sacrifice too much rate to
> > chase spots, you're losing points, not gaining them. If you focus too much
> > on rate when you should be chasing spots, you're losing points, not gaining
> > them.
> >
> > Look at the recent CQ WW DX SSB claimed scores: in all cases, unassisted
> > operations soundly outscored assisted. Does 8P5A have that much better
> > conditions than PX5E? Enough to account for 4.5 million points? Is PX5E a
> > lid? I don't think so.
> >
> > Given PEI's small size and surrounding saltwater, I'd rather be VY2TT than
> > VE2IM, yet VE2IM's unassisted score is nearly three million points more
> > than
> > VY2TT's assisted score. And, no offence to Yuri, but based on the QTH.com
> > photo for VE2IM and the website for VY2TT, I'd rather have the VY2TT
> > multiple stacked monobanders and multiple 140'+ towers, too.
> >
> > In Single Op All Bands High, you're at fourth place before you've reached
> > the first place score in Assisted All Bands High. Did No.5 K1DG not
> > outscore
> > the leading Assisted All Bands High score because he didn't use assistance,
> > or because PX5E arguably has higher potential for more higher-point,
> > off-continent QSOs?
> >
> > And, this is all before log-checking, too. Will, for example, PX5E lose
> > points and mults through the bad spots of others?
> >
> > There have been lots of excuses to explain why unassisteds always beat
> > assisteds. And it the main excuse goes like this: "Assisted attracts lesser
> > operators in lesser locations."
> >
> > I don't buy that. Does K5ZD, who recently admitted to the 'shame' of
> > operating assisted, consider himself a lid? Surely not, and surely nobody
> > who is familiar with his history would make such a claim, either.
> >
> > I think unassisteds win because rate is king, because two QSO points in the
> > hand are worth four in the bush and because chasing spots can distract you
> > from rate.
> >
> > So, no, I don't believe a loss in focus on the distinction between the two
> > classes means operators MUST use the internet to be competitive. More
> > likely
> > is the hard-core uns will attempt to prove they don't need no stinkin'
> > spots!
> >
> > 73, kelly
> > ve4xt
> >
> >
> > On 12/2/14 10:44 AM, "Mats Strandberg" <sm6lrr at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Martin,
> > >
> > > Anyone sitting in front of a radio for 48 hours does a great job and
> > should
> > > be rightfully admired. If the person also have some health issues, such
> > an
> > > operation is even more impressive. I do not take any credits away from
> > > people making such a physical and mental effort in breaking own previous
> > > records or even winning a contest one way or another.
> > >
> > > When I said lazy means that I consider myself lazy, when I do no not
> > limit
> > > myself to "me and my radio(s)".This is my own subjective opinion and is
> > not
> > > necessarily the truth.
> > >
> > > I can not question if you feel more fatigue when working SOAB(A) rather
> > > than SOAB. Human beings are different and we all react differently to
> > > physical and mental stress.
> > >
> > > My own subjective feeling is that when working Assisted, I do not feel
> > > nervous of failing to find the multipliers on the bands. If I keep very
> > > good and accurate real time control of the skimmer or RBN,  I will be
> > very
> > > quick to work the stations before the pileups build too strong for my
> > small
> > > pistol station. When working unassisted, I always fear to miss difficult
> > > multipliers that only appear for a very limited period of time. I know
> > when
> > > my target file is higher than actual multiplier and QSO count, and I feel
> > > that the only way for me to change the situation is to more effectively
> > > find those multipliers that "should" be there. but whom I have failed to
> > > find. This is stress to me.
> > >
> > > Working with the cluster, and in particular with RBN, VE7CC or an own
> > > skimmer, makes me feel 100% comfortable that sooner or later the rare
> > ones
> > > will pop up. If I am just quick as a cobra attacks, I will be there
> > before
> > > the big guns and hopefully get the mults at once.
> > >
> > > For me personally, the stress of "not finding them" is causing much more
> > > fatigue than keeping myself awake or surviving the pain in my butt...
> > >
> > > Contesting does not become "more honest" just because the organizers give
> > > up on those cheating. To merge SOAB(A) with SOAB is a simple way to say:
> > > Now we nailed them. They have no opportunity to cheat anymore.
> > >
> > > I think this is to give up!
> > >
> > > Instead, the organizers should strive to develop tools to detect the
> > rotten
> > > apples and separate them from the good ones in the basket.
> > > Cluster-cheating is no less severe than excessive power cheating, but
> > still
> > > "we fool ourselves" by thinking that merged categories reduce cheating.
> > > Power-cheating is a far worse problem than cluster-cheating, and by using
> > > good software and SDR receivers, it is nowadays more easy to find
> > > cluster-cheaters than before. Just work Assisted in a whole contest, and
> > > you understand yourself who is using cluster and skimmers, and who are
> > not.
> > > I make notes of those whom I think are Assisted like myself in such
> > > contests, and it is interesting to compare that list with what category
> > > people claim to be in when they submit the log.
> > >
> > > 73 de Mats RM2D
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-12-02 18:57 GMT+03:00 Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>:
> > >
> > >> Hi Mats,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your note.
> > >>
> > >> Reducing SOAB(A) to just point and clicking by Hans sounded really funny
> > >> to me.
> > >>
> > >> But now you saying SOAB(A) involves laziness is even funnier!
> > >>
> > >> All the SOAB(A) efforts I made from LP1H involved having my rear end
> > >> sticking to the chair for 48 hours. In 2010 after a health issue that
> > >> involved two herniated discs the week before the contest and while on
> > >>  "really strong pain pills), I still managed to sit for 48 hours
> > straight.
> > >> So I don't see laziness there.
> > >>
> > >> I can tell you one thing for sure. Plain SOAB is a lot less fatiguing
> > than
> > >> SOAB(A). And it's easier than SOAB(A), just tune the dial, stop at the
> > >> mults you hear and work'em. I mean I'm saying this after:
> > >>
> > >> 5 SOAB (A) entries totalizing: 23051 Qs in CQ WW DX CW Between 2008 and
> > >> 2012 from LP1H
> > >> 2 SOAB entries totalizing: 9889 Qs in CQ WW DX CW Between 2013 and 2014
> > >> from CE3CT
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I really appreciate you Mats, but I really cannot understand your
> > >> reasoning. Where that perception comes from.
> > >>
> > >> What Germans did in their WRTC qualifying rules is a great step forward
> > to
> > >> making sure honest competition at least in what packet abuse is
> > concerned
> > >> is achieved. I knew Paul was going to bring the rest of the list of
> > >> cheating activities cleverly developed by cheaters, like ghost ops,
> > power
> > >> abuse, remote mult stations and the rest.
> > >>
> > >> Does that mean I'm switching back to SOAB(A) to attempt to gain a sit in
> > >> WRTC 2018. Nope. I do what I enjoy the most, but that doesn't mean
> > things
> > >> need to be the way I like them. Things need to be the best way possible
> > to
> > >> make sure results reflect reality and we move forward towards Fair Play.
> > >>
> > >> Let me tell you something, there is a way to solve those too. As I said
> > >> before, to eliminate ghost ops: streaming video or clips uploaded to
> > >> Youtube right after the test. Takes little investment and high profile
> > >> stations can prove what they do.
> > >>
> > >> The rest of the list should be worked on. That's it.
> > >>
> > >> Vy 73,
> > >>
> > >> Martin, LU5DX
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Martin,
> > >>>
> > >>> Most of your points are valid, but the better  contester is the one
> > that
> > >>> does ALL his contesting without any dependence on cluster, RBN or
> > similar
> > >>> tools.
> > >>>
> > >>> I work equally often SOAB and SOAB(A). Both disciplines are fun, but
> > one
> > >>> of them is "lazy man"s choice". Sometimes (like this past weekend) I
> > >>> decided to be lazy.... and for sure did not end up in SOAB...
> > >>>
> > >>> Let's face the fact - WRTC should be the competition where the elite of
> > >>> the elite should meet!
> > >>>
> > >>> If you favor clicking skills, then computer games is the arena... Not
> > >>> First Class contesting like WRTC!
> > >>>
> > >>> I moreover also strongly disagree with your belief that Assisted and
> > >>> Non-Assisted should be merged into one category. It will be the
> > separation
> > >>> of Real Contesting from Artificial
> > >>> Contesting...
> > >>>
> > >>> Operator skills in contesting should be based on the ability to balance
> > >>> Run rate with S&P efficiency, managing propagation changes and Grey
> > Line
> > >>> influence - not your ability to "click the cluster" and automatically
> > send
> > >>> away your call with another click.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am surprised if German organizers of WRTC had the intention to
> > equalize
> > >>> SOAB with SOAB(A) when contesters should qualify for next WRTC! Maybe
> > (and
> > >>> hopefully) a clarification will follow after this debate.
> > >>>
> > >>> 73 de RM2D (SM6LRR), Mats
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Hans,
> > >>>> With all due respect.
> > >>>> I believe you do not have all the information you need to make your
> > >>>> statement.
> > >>>> To say that, it would be really interesting if you tried to enter
> > SOAB(A)
> > >>>> in a serious effort, trying to beat a personal best of yours or a
> > State
> > >>>> Record previously set in SOAB.
> > >>>> If you do, you will realize that it goes way beyond of just pointing
> > and
> > >>>> clicking to be competitive and break a SOAB mark, but this time in
> > >>>> SOAB(A).
> > >>>> I have entered SOAB for eight years in CQ WW and other contests and
> > last
> > >>>> year I switched back to SOAB. Simply because I wanted to try something
> > >>>> different. I find SOAB more rewarding though. But SOAB(A) ops deserve
> > all
> > >>>> my respect and admiration.
> > >>>> You do need to be even better than SOAB at balancing your run/mult
> > time.
> > >>>> You need to determine when to call a mult or not. You need to really
> > >>>> listen
> > >>>> to the calls of the DX station you are calling because spots get
> > busted
> > >>>> quite often.
> > >>>> You need all the skills involved in SOAB plus you need to be able to
> > >>>> handle
> > >>>> tons of information that go against the "Rate is King" rule.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Despite that, I always believed and I still do, that SOAB/SOAB(A)
> > should
> > >>>> be
> > >>>> merged to eliminate one of the many ways cheaters have to cheat in our
> > >>>> hobby and ruin it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Vy 73,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Martin, LU5DX
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> That is truly tragic as it favors "point and click" skills over
> > >>>> "radioman"
> > >>>>> skills.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Monday, Dec 1, 2014 at 21:50, Randy Thompson K5ZD <
> > k5zd at charter.net
> > >>>>> ,
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The surprise for me is that Assisted scores are compared against
> > >>>>> Unassisted.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This really says that if you want maximum points, you have to plan on
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> working Assisted.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ___________________________________________
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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