[CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change

[Kelly Taylor]

How about we hire referees to be at every single station in the contest, and give them all Alpha power meters and gatekeeping of all lines of communication into the shack?

After all, video and audio can be faked.

Shouldn't be more than a few million each contest. I'm sure all the sponsors have that much kicking around, given the kajillions they save by using volunteer labour. 

Sorry for being facetious, but there has to be a cost-benefit analysis, and the costs could be great, and non-monetary in nature. 

All serious operators NEED the little guys. Contests would be very boring if it was just a matter of which big gun worked the most other big guns. And the little guy is almost guaranteed to be sitting back, scratching his head thinking, "Don't they realize it's just a hobby? If that's what playing in a contest means, screw that."

You're never going to eliminate cheating, but you might just kill contesting in the process. 

73, kelly, ve4xt 



Sent from my iPhone

> On May 16, 2016, at 5:43 PM, Rich Assarabowski <konecc at snet.net> wrote:
> 
> I think Hal W1NN's comments summarize the issues very clearly and I agree with his assessment of the situation.   At the risk of
> offending my European friends, the reality of the situation in Europe is that cheating is more prevalent than it is in the US.
> Just looking at the list of DQ'ed calls in CQWW shows that clearly.   The attitude of many "big guns" in Europe is that there is no
> longer any point in operating QRP, low power or any of the unassisted categories because a good score will always raise suspicion as
> to the honesty and legality of the operation.   Many ops have just thrown in the towel and simply operate the high power assisted
> categories to dispel any such suspicions and avoid such accusations.   Ironically, these very same operators are often the same ones
> who operate well in excess of 1500 W total output power but that seems to be "acceptable cheating".   That is, every one else is
> doing and nobody is getting DQ'ed for that, so "why shouldn't I do it?"
> 
> I wish there was a solution that would keep these "lesser" categories alive for those who want to play the game fair and square.
> Randy K5ZD and the Committee spend countless hours scrutinizing logs and weeding out unscrupulous behavior and they should be
> commended for that.   Most other contest sponsors don't even approach that level of log checking.    
> 
> In the back of my mind, I keep thinking there is a technological solution to at least part of the problem.   The requirement by CQWW
> to provide audio recordings for unassisted categories is a step in that direction.   Should we also require a video recording of the
> operation and extend that to all categories?   How about digital power monitors that log power output to a binary file that must be
> submitted along with the log?   Should we eliminate Cabrillo text files and instead require submission of binary files (that can't
> be edited post-contest)?   None of these are fool-proof and in the end require someone to spend even more countless hours analyzing
> them.
> 
> What else can we do to improve policing?   
> 
> --- Rich K1CC  
> 
> 
>> In summary:
>> 
>> What is being proposed is not a "combining" of categories but the elimination of the most popular category EU is not
> overwhelmingly in favor of 
>> "combining"
>> The contester survey needs to be improved Contesters still enter SO more than SOA There is much that can be done to improve
> policing That log 
>> checking presents some difficulties is not a good reason for eliminating the SO category.
>> 
>> 73,
>> 
>> Hal W1NN
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest