[CQ-Contest] Proposed rules changes

Fri May 22 13:10:13 EDT 2015

The problem with these rules changes is this:

There are already lots of questions about what the rule really means and 
how it is expected to be carried out and by whom.   How do I know if I 
am going to be a top contender at the start of the contest?  Instead of 
making the rules clear and easier to understand we are just making them 
more convoluted.

I never said I didn't want to change any rules.  The peer process should 
be in place long before we ask for public opinion.  How do they expect 
us to comment on the new procedures when we really don't know what the 
heck they are trying to fix or clarify?

The part about assistance is baffling.  When did receiving outside data 
NOT be assistance.  Why has this question gone unanswered? Obviously 
logs have been submitted using this information as SO Unassisted in the 
past.  So to all those that were doing it right you got screwed by some 
esoteric interpretation of rule.

The recording rule does not specify if I MUST record the contest. It 
says that I may be asked for a recording.  When?  Before the contest?  
After the contest?

There is no discussion on why we need these new rule or what they are 
trying to clarify ???? I understand they do not want to tip their hand 
to certain cheating techniques or educating a bunch of people how best 
to cheat.

By far the biggest cheaters are with power.  Why has there been nothing 
done to combat this?  Is this a case of wink wink....we know and we just 
are not going to do anything as we might upset our friends or catch them 
and then be faced with having to do something about it?

These are our contests not CQ's, ARRL's, etc without participants they 
have nothing.  Which participants were included in the discussion that 
brought these proposed changes.  Do these organizers want the input of 
the competitors or do they run with the idea that they know it all and 
what is best for everyone.

So we have now reached the precipice where the sponsors are telling us 
what radios we must use or we can't use.  If you use a radio made by 
Yaesu and it has nasty key clicks you can be disqualified because Yaesu 
couldn't figure out how to build a proper keying circuit?  No automatic 
frequency entry, you can't play in the sand box and compete.  Please 
bring your pos radio and work all us elitists but we won't consider your 
score with your crummy radio.  This is starting to sound more like 
NASCAR and less like a hobby, where most of us want to have fun.

There is no way to stop all cheating.  You can send clear messages by 
making the penalties quite stiff.  Unlike what was done to TO7A.    A 
number of people have asked what does it take to get a 5 year ban a 
lifetime ban and those questions have never been answered.  You exploit 
in an online game and caught chances are your account and all your stuff 
will be deleted.  They will ban your name, your credit card used, paypal 
account will all be banned so you cannot play again under some other 
name.  This sends loud and clear messages.

The good ole boys  club is alive and well in ham radio...................

On 5/22/2015 7:16 AM, Kevan Nason wrote:
> Yan's comments about the object of sound recordings being available
> seemed well thought out to me. He recognizes although it is not fool
> proof it is a step in the right direction. Two others have posted ways
> to comply with the proposed new audio recording rule with either a
> free download or by purchasing a recorder that could easily be
> connected to the headphone out or speaker jack and that costs less
> than a decent headset or a couple visits to the gas station. Most
> anyone with a shot at a good enough score to be questioned by the
> Observers likely has the means to implement either of those pretty
> easily. There are undoubtedly other free or low cost methods available
> as well.
>
> Mike, I know you like to be the Devils Advocate and stir things up.
> But I've a question about your asking why the rules do not also
> require power monitoring and video recorders. Are you implying since
> there is no 100% solution to stop ALL cheating at the same time that
> nothing at should be done to even try to reduce it? If so, I'm curious
> as to why you are against implementing this incremental step at
> reducing it -- which would appear to be a good thing for the contest
> community in general. It wouldn't seem too difficult for you
> personally to implement this based upon the description of your
> station on your web page. And again, with what appears to be a minor
> amount of work and cost anyone who thinks they have the possibility of
> a score good enough for the Observers to take an interest and ask for
> an audio recording is very likely to have the resources to afford
> either of the two already proposed solutions.
>
> So is your objection just on general principles, like "I don't want
> any change to existing rules", or "I like to stir the pot", or...
> what? What am I missing that is so evil in this rule that you aren't
> supporting it? I spent years as a Nuclear Planner, a Site Manager, and
> now am a Maintenance Planner at a Gas Turbine R&D facility and have
> learned it is virtually impossible for anyone, not just me, to write a
> procedure or rules to do a job the first time without having at least
> one glitch. You define what the problem is, determine a way to
> eliminate or at least reduce the problem to acceptable levels, write
> up a plan as best you can, get peer/coworker feedback, revise the
> initial plan, start the job, and adjust as needed during the work. We
> seem to be at the peer/coworker feedback part of this process. You are
> an active participant so I'm asking for your feedback. I just don't
> understand why you think this is a bad idea.
>
> And no, I am not involved with CQ nor have I been asked my opinion
> about this by anyone. My interest is that I too am an active
> participant in contests and if there is a valid point to not doing it
> I would like to know and side with you against it. If there isn't what
> I consider a good reason not to implement it, then I am for it.
>
> Kevan
> N4XL
>
>
> On May 21, 2015, at 10:35 PM, W0MU <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
>
> If we are going to start requiring recordings.  Why not wattmeters
> that write the peak value every 30 seconds or so to a disk with
> cameras that watch that the meters are hooked up to the very last coax
> segment going to the antenna system.
>
> This should not be a big deal either.
>
>
>> On 5/21/2015 7:32 PM, Gerry Hull wrote:
>> "Diddly-squat"
>>
>> That's how much resources are required to record a contest.
>>
>> http://www.hamradiomap.com/qsorder/
>>
>> QSORecorder works with N1MM, and records the content of every completed QSO
>> -- storing
>> an MP3 or WAV file with the file name YOUR_CALL_THEIR_CALL_BAND _DATE_TIME.
>>
>> It runs completely separately from N1MM; it uses broadcast UDP to convey
>> the info, so does not interfere with operation.
>> It works with regular or plus.
>>
>> When K2LE and I did P40LE in ARRL DX CW this year, I recorded the entire
>> contest.  I did not even notice the disk usage,
>> though I only had about 20 GB free on my disk.
>>
>> So, for anyone who can put together a station for a Top-10 effort,
>> Implementing recording should be an easy task.
>>
>> 73, Gerry
>> W1VE
>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Occasionally (certainly doesn't happen very often, I'll say that) when a
>>> couple of the superstations in our area are not QRV, some of us in the
>>> Maritimes have had totally surprise wins in certain contests. (not always
>>> CQ,mind you- hi)
>>>
>>> Some of us have even set records.  I would say it's always a surprise for
>>> whoever 'wins'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I do not own land in a top tier contest locale or can afford
>>> that
>>> kind of station (don't even have a tower up !) so using my very old first
>>> gen Win-7 laptop as the shack computer and either 100w or 500w and a
>>> vertical or low wires, I am not really geared up to usually either EXPECT
>>> to
>>> be in the top ten anything or technologically setup to record an entire
>>> contest. The HDD is mostly full now, nevermind trying to figure out how to
>>> record the full 48 hours.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe someone computer savvy could weigh in on this thread and indicate to
>>> the readership here just how much disk space and processor resources it
>>> would require to even record such an event (CW&SSB).
>>>
>>>    (I am just assuming it's well beyond what a lot of stations are capable
>>> of, top ten or not)  It would be interesting to know.  On the off chance
>>> that PEI sinks*, what kind of evidence must folks in other parts of Canada
>>> be prepared to submit to CQ if those 2 can't play?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank goodness I seldom go assisted as the computers logging program
>>> stutters now if I have a full bore telnet feed from VE7CC running during  a
>>> contest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Inquiring minds........Mike VE9AA
>>>
>>> *for those of you that are humour impaired, this is a joke.
>>>
>>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>>>
>>> Keswick Ridge, NB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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