[CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW 2014 TO7A.

Thu May 7 11:30:00 EDT 2015

The organizers have a real dilemma - disclose your evidence and the way 
it was gathered, and you're simply giving cheaters a blueprint of how to 
evade detection next time.

I suspect, as an old policy wonk, that the really hard part is figuring 
out where to set the threshold for taking action. Obviously every guy 
who forgets to put his radio in split mode and accidentally transmits 
out of band a couple of times during a 48-hour contest shouldn't be DQ'ed.

You can see wide signals (and quantify how wide) on any SDR, on either 
CW or SSB (or RTTY for that matter.  It's easy,but I agree that a 
quantitative standard is needed, both how wide and how much of the 
time.  If somneone says, "Yeah, I had a problem, but I fixed it as soon 
as someone told me", that's easy enough to check

Proving use of assistance is much harder.  At least back in the day of 
human spotting, you could develop a quantitative measure of how quickly 
a station was getting to stations once they're spotted, and say with 
some confidence which stations were using spots.  But today, with the 
RBN (or a local Skimmer) filling your bandmap, how do you discriminate 
between a really good single op running 2 VFOs or 2 radios and one who 
is using assistance?  A cheater would probably have to do some dumb 
things to get caught, such as always jumping on new mults as soon as 
they're spotted, regardless of frequency.

And so we come back to the threshold question.  Particularly when you're 
starting a crackdown, with lightly tested technology, do you immediately 
nail everyone you *think* is cheating?  Or do you hit only the most 
egregious the first time, and get tougher as you get better at using the 
tools you have available?

I trust Randy and the committee to handle this tricky business as well 
as anyone can.

73, Pete N4ZR
Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
<http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
out the Reverse Beacon Network at
<http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

On 5/7/2015 10:02 AM, Stan Stockton wrote:
> Randy,
>
> There is a lot you are doing for the "sport" that is great work.
>
> However, whether we like it or not, we have an unwritten rule that basically says "We may subjectively choose who we "believe" broke the rules, even without absolute proof.  We can choose whether or not to disqualify the entry, request that the accused submit evidence in attempt to prove innocence and still subjectively choose whether to disqualify the entrant regardless of proof submitted".
>
> I'm in the camp of....I don't like it.
>
> A quote from Caddy Shack comes to mind but wouldn't be politically correct in this particular instance.
>
> In my opinion, it would be better if the subjectivity of these types of decisions was eliminated from the process.  There are several ways that I can think of to know with near 100% certainty that someone was using assistance other than that provided by a band scope and a directive antenna.  They would use an objective, software analysis of every single operator log.
>
> Now we are adding another subjective area for possible DQ - signal quality without definition of what constitutes a bad signal or duration of the problem during a 48 hour contest.  I can think of two instances in recent history where prominent, high profile stations had a serious problem and have concern that the subjective decision making process would come into play while others were penalized.
>
> OK, this Caddy Shack reference/metaphor is alright.
>
> The thing no "decent, upstanding member of a society" wants is for anyone to ever have fear of entering a contest because the rules are adjudicated with a lot of subjectivity while other gophers seemingly dig with impunity.
>
> 73...Stan, K5GO
>
>
>
>> On May 6, 2015, at 11:06 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd at charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dmitry,
>>
>> It appears you are not receiving the emails that I am sending to you.  Since
>> you are reading the cq-contest reflector, I will attempt to use this path to
>> reply to you.
>>
>> Below is the email I sent on March 6 notifying you of the disqualification
>> of your TO7A entry.
>>
>> I had also sent an email on Feb 1 asking for recordings of portions of your
>> log.  Perhaps you did not receive it.
>>
>> I also replied to your email from May 3, but that must not have made it
>> through either. Do you have another email address that would be more
>> reliable?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Randy, K5ZD
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Randy Thompson K5ZD [mailto:k5zd at charter.net]
>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:42 AM
>> To: 'dx at ut5ugr.com'
>> Subject: TO7A in CQ WW CW 2014 - Disqualified
>> Importance: High
>>
>> Dear OM,
>>
>> I am writing to inform you that the TO7A (op UT5UGR) entry in the 2014 CQ WW
>> DX CW Contest is being disqualified. You entered in the Single Operator
>> category (V.A.1). This category does not allow use of QSO alerting
>> assistance.
>>
>> The definition of QSO alerting assistance is in rule VIII.
>>
>> 2. QSO alerting assistance: The use of any technology or other source that
>> provides call sign or multiplier identification along with frequency
>> information to the operator. It includes, but is not limited to, use of DX
>> cluster, packet, local or remote call sign and frequency decoding technology
>> (e.g., CW Skimmer or Reverse Beacon Network), or operating arrangements
>> involving other individuals.
>>
>> CQ WW Rules:  http://www.cqww.com/rules.htm
>>
>>
>> Based on analysis of your log, we believe that you did use QSO spotting
>> assistance (such as the Internet, DX cluster, RBN, etc.) to help you find
>> QSOs.
>>
>> You have five days to appeal the disqualification and provide any
>> information about your entry. After that time the decision is final.
>>
>> The best evidence that you could provide to us is a recording of your
>> operation.
>>
>> Your entry is disqualified only for the 2014 CW contest. You will be welcome
>> to submit an entry in the CQWW Contest in 2015.
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>> Randy Thompson, K5ZD
>> Director - CQ WW DX Contest
>> email: k5zd at cqww.com
>> web: www.cqww.com
>> Facebook: www.facebook.com/cqwwdx
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Dmitry Stashuk
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 8:50 PM
>>> To: Ken Widelitz
>>> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW 2014 TO7A.
>>>
>>> Hi, Ken.
>>> No any supporting documentations exist. No any reason was reported. In
>>> violation of chapter XII.C.2 of CQ WW contest rules nobody from contest
>>> committee did Email me about any issues. I have never receive any answer
>>> to my Emails to the contest committee.
>>>
>>> 73's Dim UT5UGR/TO7A
>>> Enjoy some videos of TO7A in CQ WW CW 2014
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD1qr51cV-s.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Ken Widelitz" <widelitz at gte.net>
>>> To: "'Barry'" <w2up at comcast.net>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 8:43 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW 2014 Results
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not only a lot of DQ's. The #1 SOABHP claimed score TO7A (UT5UGR, op)
>>> was
>>>> DQ'd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would really like to see the reason(s) and supporting documentation
>>> for
>>>> that one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>