[CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change

Ron Notarius W3WN wn3vaw at verizon.net
Tue May 24 17:23:10 EDT 2016


So the only solution to eliminate cheating is to merge the categories?

Or it's presumed that it's too hard to "adjudicate" the results without
merging the categories?

There are no other reasons to merge the categories?

No, some of the rules aren't "fair" -- and never have been.  

And to some degree, doesn't this mean that we've come (in ~30 years) full
circle?  One of the big arguments for making what we now commonly call the
"assisted" or "unlimited" category was that some Single Op applicants were
"unfairly" using technological assistance -- spotting networks at first,
amongst many other things -- and this could be considered "cheating."  

Now some want to recombine the two categories... to eliminate "cheating".

IMHO, the bottom line, though, is that merging or recombining or whatever
you want to call it... it will not significantly affect the rules benders or
breakers.  If they want to find another way, they will.  

And the "unfair" rules -- especially those that come from zone and other
geographical anomalies -- will remain.

It will only impact those who HONESTLY operate in the "pure" SO categories.
And most likely not in a good way.

I'm not in favor of this.  

And that's all I'm going to say about this.

73, ron w3wn

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Martin , LU5DX
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Bill Hider
Cc: kd4d; CQ-Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change

Again, personal preferences first.
You will be able to keep entering contests in the way you want, even if
categories are merged.
No one will force to point and click for Qs.
It makes sense to change after thirty years, mainly because competition is
not fair given rules the way they are.
Even if it is about at a zone or country level, results cannot be properly
adjudicated, simply because the improper use of dx alerting cannot be
proved to the extent needed.
We have a way to eliminate a very effective and undetectable way of
cheating and all we do is look for excuses not to do it. We base our
propositions in our personsal likes and dislikes, or on the fact that out
hobby also suffers of other ways of cheating like power abuse, log padding,
ghost ops, remote receivers, etc.
Pretty amazing!

73,
Martin LU5DX
El may 24, 2016 9:49, "Bill Hider" <n3rr at erols.com> escribió:

I totally agree with Mark, KD4D and I am a SOA operator and I want to keep
the SO & SOA categories separate.
Why would anyone care to combine them after the nearly 30 years we've
managed to keep them separate?
I say "we" because I was in the vanguard in the 1980s participating as a M/S
just because I was using packet as a single op
and there was no such thing as "assisted" or "unlimited".  I took spots in
off the packet and printed them using my ASR TTY machine.
Later on, back then, I was able to make a 1,000,000 point score in ARRL DX
by clicking on the spots - great FUN!

For me it's two things:
It's more FUN for me to operate SOA than SO.
Having two categories means more awards which equals more participation
which equals more FUN!

Simple.

Bill N3RR



-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
kd4d at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:11 AM
To: cq-contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change

Good day, Martin:

It makes sense to keep the separation between single operator and single
operator Assisted/Unlimited because many of us believe the skill involved in
finding stations to work without having a computer or other operator do it
for us is worth measuring (and a lot of fun).  The organizers of WRTC, for
one, agree - look at their rules sometime.

It is not obvious that operators who don't use the DX alerting assistance
(particularly on CW) will do better than those who do not - THAT is what the
SOs are complaining about.  We don't want to be forced to use DX alerting
assistance to compete.  The same operators, using DX alerting assistance,
will make higher scores than they do without...The CW skimmers/RBN have made
this particularly obvious for CW operations.

Clearly, combining the categories is all about comparing the highest scores
for everyone and everyone wishing to be competitive will use DX alerting
assistance if the categories are combined.  I certainly use it in WAE (where
there is one category) when I operate that contest.

Why do the advocates of combining the categories - surely they only operate
Assisted - want to combine the categories anyway?  I understand the concerns
of the contest organizers, but why do any of the Assisted operators care?

73,

Mark, KD4D

At this point it makes no sense to keep this separation anymore.

In the end, SO will keep doing better than those who use DX alerting
assistance, so what SOs are complaining about?

----- Original Message -----
From: "LU5DX Martin" <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
To: "Davor Kucelin" <davor.kucelin at plavalaguna.hr>, "cq-contest"
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:08:25 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change

What's your point?

Combining SOAB and SOAB(A) has nothing to do with comparing the highest
scores in each category.

It's about eliminating  the possibility of taking even a very small unfair
advantage throughout the 48-hour period that can place a cheater above
his/her competitors (even if it is very little above in the rankings)

It also has to do with eliminating the burden and work overload that implies
trying to find those who cheat.

Reality is that ops who cheat have perfected their techniques beyond what
can be detected by log checkers. Those who get caught year after year are
those who abuse of DX clusters in a very obvious way.

At this point it makes no sense to keep this separation anymore.

In the end, SO will keep doing better than those who use DX alerting
assistance, so what SOs are complaining about?

They can even still use a pen and paper logs and send CW with a straight key
if they want.

Are there still contesters out there entering contests because they think
they are winning anything at all, or winning over anybody at all??

What in the world would make someone think he/she is winning over someone
who is thousand of miles away, with totally different equipment, propagation
and participating according to a bunch of rules that are hardly
enforceable?t

C'mon guys. It seems like intelligence is inversely proportional to egos
among certain high profile contesters :-)

Our "competitions" have nothing of real competitions. It is just a game of
enjoyment, but if we are still going to pretend these are competitions, at
least we can establish the foundations to make them something a bit more
trustworthy in those terms.

73,

Martin LU5DX



On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Davor Kucelin <davor.kucelin at plavalaguna.hr
> wrote:

> CQWW SSB Top 10 scores all years
>
>
>
> SOABHP
>
>
>
> 1             EA8BH  1999      SO HP ALL           25,646,796
> 10,253   176         692         -              N5TJ
>
> 2             CN2R     2004      SO HP ALL           20,938,680
> 8,655     172         668         -              W7EJ
>
> 3             D4B        2004      SO HP ALL           20,433,438
> 8,799     172         674         -              4L5A
>
> 4             D4B        2003      SO HP ALL           20,119,968
> 8,956     169         634         -              4L5A
>
> 5             CN2R     2003      SO HP ALL           18,743,250
> 8,682     152         594         -              W7EJ
>
> 6             HC8A     1999      SO HP ALL           18,607,050
> 8,638     175         595         -              N6KT
>
> 7             CN2R     2011      SO HP ALL           18,518,160
> 8,409     167         593         44.7       W7EJ
>
> 8             CN2R     2013      SO HP ALL           18,277,746
> 8,370     167         579         46.9       W7EJ     [Cert]
>
> 9             HC8A     2000      SO HP ALL           18,122,040
> 9,160     163         547         -              N6KT
>
> 10           8P5A     2013      SO HP ALL           17,059,840
> 10,126   162         518         48.0       W2SC
>
>
>
> SOAB ASSISTED HP
>
>
>
> 1             9Y4ZC    2003      SA HP ALL           14,979,055
> 8,114     137         500         -              DL6FBL
>
> 2             P40A     2011      SA HP ALL           14,332,656
> 7,478     156         513         43.5       KK9A
>
> 3             TM6M  2015      SA HP ALL           14,263,470
> 7,057     168         667         47.9       F8DBF   [Cert]
>
> 4             P40P      2002      SA HP ALL           12,975,732
> 6,639     154         528         -              W5AJ
>
> 5             EF8U     2013      SA HP ALL           12,743,163
> 6,656     154         533         45.0       EA8RM [Cert]
>
> 6             NN3W  2011      SA HP ALL           11,828,236
> 4,921     185         683         44.7       @N3HBX
>
> 7             OH0X    2015      SA HP ALL           11,790,240
> 6,294     174         706         48.0       OH6KZP               [Cert]
>
> 8             P40W    2003      SA HP ALL           11,755,443
> 6,730     137         496         -              W2GD
>
> 9             D4B        2002      SA HP ALL           11,567,412
> 5,845     152         586         -              4L5A
>
>
>
> CQWW CW Top 10 scores all years
>
>
>
> SOABHP
>
>
>
> 1             EA8BH  2000      SO HP ALL           18,010,765
> 7,555     183         634         -              N5TJ
>
> 2             ZF2MJ   2015      SO HP ALL           16,730,788
> 10,014   170         527         48.0       N6MJ    [Cert]
>
> 3             CR3OO 2015      SO HP ALL           16,090,078
> 8,812     152         474         48.0       CT1BOH               [Cert]
>
> 4             P40E      2003      SO HP ALL           15,943,070
> 7,828     169         546         -              CT1BOH
>
> 5             EF8M    2011      SO HP ALL           15,846,012
> 7,873     160         531         48.0       RD3A
>
> 6             PZ5T      2011      SO HP ALL           15,673,940
> 7,592     173         545         47.4       VE3DZ
>
> 7             CR3E      2012      SO HP ALL           15,221,316
> 7,275     170         556         48.0       CT1BOH               [Cert]
>
> 8             CR3E      2011      SO HP ALL           15,151,668
> 7,212     168         564         48.0       CT1BOH
>
> 9             EF8M    2010      SO HP ALL           15,117,795
> 7,598     158         535         47.8       RD3A
>
> 10           HC8N    1999      SO HP ALL           14,626,579
> 7,001     185         546         -              N5KO
>
>
>
> SOAB ASSISTED HP
>
>
>
> 1             9Y4ZC    2004      SA HP ALL           14,581,665
> 6,576     169         596         -              DL6FBL
>
> 2             5B/AA1TN          2004      SA HP ALL           13,715,573
> 6,381     170         627         -              RW3QC
>
> 3             EF9O     2013      SA HP ALL           13,530,554
> 5,826     171         623         46.6       EA5BM [Cert]
>
> 4             K5ZD/1 2014      SA HP ALL           12,768,365
> 4,993     190         697         44.3                      [Cert]
>
> 5             EF8U     2013      SA HP ALL           11,955,126
> 5,700     169         602         44.2       EA8RM [Cert]
>
> 6             CN3A    2010      SA HP ALL           11,818,159
> 5,729     156         577         46.4
>
> 7             NP4Z     2013      SA HP ALL           11,341,512
> 6,059     165         591         46.9
>
> 8             K5ZD/1 2015      SA HP ALL           11,275,488
> 4,742     179         654         44.9                      [Cert]
>
> 9             CT9M    2002      SA HP ALL           11,225,452
> 5,181     159         605         -              DL2CC
>
> 10           P40C      2014      SA HP ALL           11,085,536
> 6,242     154         462         44.8       KU1CW
>
>
>
> So what are we talking about?
>
> Best Assisted score is way below 10th unassisted score.
>
> What are you than scared about to combine the 2 categorys.
>
>
>
>
>
> 73 Dave 9A1UN
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7598 / Virus Database: 4568/12285 - Release Date: 05/23/16

_______________________________________________
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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list