[CQ-Contest] Spots, Lies and Audio Tapes - a proposal

[kd4d at comcast.net]

Good evening, Scott:

I strongly agree with what you have written.

This is the best summary I've read of the "recording" issue and proposed rule changes - and this is an excellent proposal.

It eliminates the impact on the vast majority of the entrants in the contest AND doesn't require potential high scorers to "self-identify" before the contest.

I also strongly agree with maintaining the distinction between Single Operator and Single Operator Assisted/Unlimited.

Thanks and 73,

Mark, KD4D

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott K0DQ" <k0dq at analog.org>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:40:27 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Spots, Lies and Audio Tapes - a proposal

PROPOSED: Reinstate the option for audio recordings under the Observer
program, with advance notice of 30 days before the contest given to stations
from which the recording may be required.

THE GOOD

When we reflect back on early 2015, I believe this will be remembered as the
year the cheaters got nailed.  The total number of DQ's almost tripled from
last year (total, both modes) and one high profile case has engaged the
contesting community.  Another 48 were warned.  Time will tell but I believe
the deterrent effect to cheating has been substantially strengthened.
Bottom line is, this is good news for the integrity of the contesting game -
a welcome development which many of us believe was long overdue.

Drowned out in much of the speculation and commentary on this reflector is
the incredible amount of work put into the results by Randy and the Contest
Committee.  They are the real heroes of contesting and deserve our profound
thanks for their volunteer efforts. 

THE PROBLEM:

Regrettably, in spite of KE3X's superb post, the audio recording option
under the Observer program was removed in the 2nd Draft of CQWW Rules.  I
believe that is a mistake, akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Let's be clear:   The primary issue involved here is the use of unclaimed
assistance by single operators. 90 percent of the total DQs in both modes of
CQWW 2014 involved "unclaimed assistance."  

As the rolling discussion has shown, proving the use of assistance from a
log alone is not as straightforward as some might think.  While the log
checking software is good, making the public case is a two edged sword.  As
in other disciplines, the more you reveal sources and methods, the more you
help those few who seed to avoid detection, making catching the next
offender harder.   

On the other hand, the audio record provides a very strong tool for
detecting several cheating violations, but especially assistance.  Listen to
audio of assisted and unassisted and it's two different worlds:  like
digital vs. analog, or carpet bombing vs. precision guided weapons.  All of
the hypothetical band map scenarios and other claims of "lucky" tuning in a
stochastic environment are answerable by "Show me the sound."  Where in your
recording  is the aural record of station's callsign?  Where is the audio of
the other xx signals which RBN and SDR clearly showed were interspersed with
the mults you conveniently found?  

Recording is not hard or onerous.  For the past several years I've recorded
all my contests for practice and preparation - but also as a record in case
there were ever a question as to whether I was using assistance.  There are
a range of easy options, ranging from contest software programs (e.g.
Win-Test) to  a simple outboard audio recorder (I just bought one for under
$50, put a Y connector in the headphone line, and recorded 54 hours of
stereo audio with plenty of disc space and battery power remaining).  Again,
this is not rocket science.  It was a WRTC requirement which all stations
managed to figure out in a field day scenario.

A PROPOSAL:

The problem seems to have been in defining the "class" of people from whom
the recordings would be requested.  While I personally see no problem with a
larger group, why not "test drive" the concept (as with the original
Observer program) and phase in the concept with the group arguably most
affected:  SOAB Unassisted.  Since it's under the observer program, which
requires some advance notice, designate the stations well in advance, say 30
days.  As a starting point, all stations DQ'd for unclaimed assistance this
year could be notified.  I suspect most of the world / US top ten or top 20
SOAB ops would agree to be guinea pigs as well.  

Are there possible issues.  Of course.  The dog (computer) ate my homework
(recording).  I screwed up and forgot to turn it on.  Solution, talk to
Randy and explain the situation.   The committee has discretion to change
categories as well as CQ.   If the log checking gives you a clean bill of
health and you have a solid reputation, perhaps you stay in the Unassisted
category. If there are minor questions, perhaps you're reclassified to
Assisted.  If they've seen this movie before with you starring in it,  you
may be DQ'd.   

WHAT'S AT STAKE OVERALL?  

There are some who believe the only/inevitable solution is to combine
Assisted and Unassisted into one category.  

Some in that camp advocate for what they see as positive reasons - the
inexorable march of technology, the belief that it will draw more youth,
etc.  Others do so out of less hopeful motives . . . a sense of cynicism
(that cheating is inevitable) or of frustration - that the effort currently
required to catch cheaters is unsustainable in the long term.  Both are
fueled by often uninformed criticism directed against those who enforce the
rules. 

I respectfully disagree.  I believe combining the categories would be a
mistake and is not what the majority of the contest community desires.

In the last few months I've spoken to well over a hundred serious contesters
in two groups, the Florida Contest Group (FCG annual dinner) and the
Frankford Radio Club (FRC).  In both venues, I took an unofficial poll with
several softball questions on favorite contest, mode, category, etc.   The
last question was the kicker - do you favor combining the Single Op Assisted
and Unassisted categories?  Of some 120 votes, only 3 or 4 - less than 5
percent - favored combining them.  Interestingly , that was also true in FRC
- a club in which the majority preferred operating Assisted themselves.  

Audio recordings are not a silver bullet, but they would be, I believe, a
powerful tool in maintaining the integrity of contesting in general and the
SOAB Unassisted category in particular.  The alternative may well be
combining the Assisted and Unassisted categories or returning to a laissez
faire enforcement of Unassisted.   

Yes, it's just a hobby.  But it's one to which many of us devote much time
and treasure.  To borrow a metaphor from another time and place:  "Trust . .
. but verify."

73,

Scott, K0DQ 

 

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest