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

Wed May 27 06:51:30 EDT 2015

Good discussion.

I already wrote on another email list it seems CQWW CC has reached the main
goal.

The main goal is the top performers, all top performers, know they might be
asked for a recording after CQWW 2015.
That happened already in 2014.

The fact, however, is that the director is not likely going to ask for a
recording.
Thinking from a judge's point of view, there must be a smoking gun before
such a question is presented to the entrant. Purpose of that question is to
acquire evidence that would show the entrant played fair despite what the
logs say.

The possibility has been shown and revealed to the most active contesters.
I am sure they all have already prepared for the recordings and will test
the systems in CQ WPX.

The public does not know this, but some top entrants have already been
asked for a recording in some previous contests.
The operations have been declared OK, largely based on that recording the
top scoring entrants provided.

Many may be asking how is it possible top entrants had recordings already
some years back.
My question is more to a direction how anyone could climb to the top
without recording and learning from the recordings.

Helping the log checkers by a recording is a possibility that comes on the
side in case a recording would be asked.

Scott and Andy are endorsing recording the contest.
I am also endorsing recording the contest, as the operator hears the
operating.

In modern internet terms: +1

73,
Jukka OH6LI

2015-05-27 2:54 GMT+03:00 Andy Blank <andyn2nt at gmail.com>:

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