[CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change

[Joe]

Could all the cluster owners provide the contest sponsors a list of 
every call that connected to their systems during the contest period?

Would that work?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 5/15/2016 7:48 PM, kd4d at comcast.net wrote:
> Hi Doug:
>
> There are many forms of cheating available to entrants in the single operator categories that are very difficult or impossible for contest sponsors to detect.  Unclaimed "Assistance" is one.
>
> Four others that come to mind immediately are:
> 1)  Multiple operators contributing to single-operator efforts
> 2)  Remote Receivers
> 3)  Power cheating in QRP and Low Power categories
> 4)  Power cheating in high power categories
>
> I don't think cheating should drive the future of radiosport.  The contest sponsors can't eliminate cheating - I admire and support their efforts but I don't expect them to catch everyone who cheats.
>
> I don't support eliminating rules just because cheating is hard to detect.  That path ends with no rules at all - all competitive games I can think of need rules.
>
> 73,
>
> Mark, KD4D
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kr2q at optimum.net
> To: "cq-contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 8:33:22 AM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change
>
> I see two perspectives to the discussion about combining SO with SOA:
>
> 1.  What do the entrants want?
> 2.  What is the contest sponsor capable of?
>
> Randy's surveys have shown that (on a high level), EU wants them combined but USA doesn't.
>
> EU has more entrants than the USA.  Should that be factored in?  Should one-man-one-vote count?
>
> Most entrants have no idea what the contest sponsor is capable of.  Looking at the DQs might
> give an indication of which contests look/care.  Some contests, with a separation for these
> two categories, NEVER DQ ANYONE for unclaimed use of "assistance," to use the CQ terminology.
>
> What should entrants read into that?  For those who are vocal about keeping the separation,
> what do you think about the "other" contests (not CQWW on Oct/Nov) that NEVER DQ for
> unclaimed assistance?  Is ignorance bliss?
>
> For me, it is a matter of ethics on the part of the contest sponsors/log adjudicators.  If the
> tools available do not allow for detecting "unclaimed assistance," is it ethical for the sponsor
> to keep the categories separate, implying that "they can tell" and thereby implying a degree of
> confidence in the published results?
>
> What is the expectation of the entrants in looking at results?  Does the entrant EXPECT that
> because the categories are separate, that the results are necessarily bullet proof?  How about
> "close enough?"  Something else?
>
> Randy said, "It has also made it more difficult to police the line between [paraphrasing] SO vs SOA."
>
> What exactly does that mean?
>
> Conjecture for Discussion:
> What if it means that subtle (smart?) use of assistance, entered as not SOA, cannot be proven?
> What if subtle use of assistance means that it can't even be found?
>
> Do the entrants still want two distinct categories IF (say, for the top 10), such abuse could not
> actually be accurately adjudicated?  How would we, the entrants, react?  What is our expectation
> of the contest sponsor?
>
> PROMPTING QUESTION
> Is it more important to maintain two categories for the sake of having them separate or is it more
> important that the published scores PER CATEGORY mean something?
>
> de Doug KR2Q
>
> PS..if you want to know my opinion, I would like to see the categories remain separated, but only
> if the separation has meaning.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>