[CQ-Contest] No more Unassisted in ARRL VHF Contests?
ve4xt at mymts.net
Mon Nov 17 10:25:01 EST 2014
If cheating on packet/cluster/RBN was such a benefit, wouldn't the assisted
classes outperform the unassisted, rather than the other way around? If the
guys who are honest about assistance can't beat the unassisted, how could a
And if that's the case, and I believe it is, then what's the benefit to
getting knickers in a knot over whether a guy who's not going to win anyway
tries to delude himself into thinking he's really pulling one over on us?
Meanwhile, why not worry about the guys for whom an Alpha 9500 is just an
exciter? We don't really believe every single one of those 599 500 or 599
400 reports in ARRL DX, do we?
Yet, power levels never get anywhere near the level of hand-wringing
despite actually being an infraction of actual laws in most countries
compared to the overwhelming dread someone might be looking at an Internet
site they're not supposed to?
On 11/17/14 5:45 AM, "kr2q at optimum.net" <kr2q at optimum.net> wrote:
> Dave, G4BUO said:
> So Doug, by the same logic do you believe ARRL and perhaps other contest
> sponsors should remove the distinction between single and multi-op since
> it is hard for the checkers to tell the difference?
> In my original post, I also pointed out how contest sponsors retain separate
> categories for the
> various power levels, even though they cannot actually verify that with 100%
> (or >x% percent?)
> of accuracy. So I "get" (already got) what you are saying.
> However, this is really up to the entrants (IMHO). Does it make sense to have
> categories that
> the contest sponsors cannot verify?
> If the contest community is willing to accept that there are, in fact,
> cheaters in the world AND
> that contest sponsors cannot always find them AND that the published results
> may not be a
> true reflection of reality, then sure, keep the all of the categories
> But if an entrant is counting on the sponsors being able to keep all
> categories "pure," then
> the entrant is only fooling him/her self.
> In published surveys, it seems that EU is in favor of allowing spotting
> assistance for SOAB
> (nice way of saying, no more distinction). But the majority of USA feels
> exactly the opposite.
> Checking for unclaimed spotting assistance is a huge burden on the sponsors
> (if they check
> at all). If sponsors did not have to do such checking, my best guess is that
> the final results
> could easily be published in <30 days....possibly even < 14 days.
> Consider the contest sponsor. What is their ethical obligation to the
> entrants when they
> publish "the results?" If the understanding is, "This is the best we could do
> and we know
> that there are cheaters in here that for whom we could not adequately
> demonstrate category drift,"
> and the contest community is willing to accept that, then the status quo is
> In closing, these are simply my thoughts on the topic; nothing here is gospel.
> If you'd like to continue the discussion, I suggest that we take it off line.
> de Doug KR2Q
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest