[CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change

[ve4xt at mymts.net]

No, because there's often no login required, and wouldn't be secure if there was.

You can watch spots online and nobody knows you're there. The most that might show up is the IP address suggesting someone on your ISP is watching, but that could be anybody, and it's easily spoofed, as well. Just look at all the folks using VPN to access Hulu from outside the US.

The only way to eliminate cheating in contesting is to eliminate contesting.

73, kelly, ve4xt 

Sent from my iPad

> On May 16, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Joe <nss at mwt.net> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest