[CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change
Bob Kupps
n6bk at yahoo.com
Tue May 24 21:38:07 EDT 2016
Hi well all I have to add is that I hope that there will always be as many categories of competition as possible. I applaud the efforts of the WWROF and others for keeping radiosport competition as fair as possible and if they could improve their efforts with more funds and or manpower then I encourage them to appeal to the contest community for it. Hopefully competition organizers will not be forced toward the lowest common denominator. 73 Bob HS0ZIA
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Stan Stockton<wa5rtg at gmail.com> wrote: I'm curious as to why the assisted operators want to eliminate the unassisted category and for that matter why their opinion matters?
Is there any answer to the question above?
Obviously, by definition, those who operated unassisted don't want to eliminate it.
Stan, K5GO
Sent from Stan's IPhone
> On May 24, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Martin, LU5DX <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar> wrote:
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list