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

[Dick Green WC1M]

Scott makes a very persuasive case for why recordings are needed. His examples have really helped me to understand how recordings can expose cheating.

I agree with Scott -- let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. My only objection to the change was the wording, which didn't make it clear that there would be advance notice. With that provision, as described by Scott, I'm very much in favor of the requirement.

And I agree with Andy. Let's show our support for getting a recoding rule in effect for 2015.

I may never be asked to supply a recording, but I'm going to get my station set up for it!

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Blank [mailto:andyn2nt at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:54 PM
> To: Scott K0DQ
> Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Spots, Lies and Audio Tapes - a proposal
> 
> Absolutely agree Scott.
> 
> It is the easiest and most powerful thing we can do at this time.
> In order to sway the committee now, we need to publicly show support.
> As a competitive single op, I would much rather have the recordings
> available. For those who are in it for fun, it will not affect them in the least.
> SOAB Unassisted to start would be easily doable.
> 
> If you follow the rules, the probability is no audio will be needed anyway.
> 
> If there is enough support, we just may get this done for 2015.
> 
> 73, Andy N2NT
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Scott K0DQ <k0dq at analog.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >