[CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW 2014 TO7A.
W0MU Mike Fatchett
w0mu at w0mu.com
Sat May 9 13:58:21 EDT 2015
Pete,
You are dead on here. Game developers/publishers have the same problem
with cheaters and they do not tell you how they determine that you are
cheating, hacking, scripting, exploiting, whatever. If they did those
players would just develop better ways to hide their bad behavior. I
think CQ and ARRL should be very discreet on their detection methods.
I disagree with others that need to see solid proof. The contest
organizers are in charge. If you don't like the way they run it, then
don't submit a log.
This is a social sickness, that seems to be much much worse across the
pond. The cheating in games from Russian players is huge, then the rest
of Europe.
Apparently in some of these cultures, cheating is expected? I don't know.
Sadly people have been cheating in contests for a long long time. I was
told by the owner of a big Multi in the Caribbean how this team broke
the all time record. He was not a ham and I didn't have the heart to
tell him that they cheated to obtain the record.
In gaming, we have reflectors and forums and the once the cheaters get
banned, they whine and cry in the forums and claim innocence. On very
rare instances those screaming actually were banned wrongly, very rarely.
Check logs should be public as well. What plausible reasons are there
for not making them public?
Mike W0MU
On 5/7/2015 9:30 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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