[CQ-Contest] High power reclassification

Drew Vonada-Smith drew at whisperingwoods.org
Wed Oct 5 12:41:26 EDT 2016


If I can rephrase your argument, you are saying:

1) Congrats to RDXC that they want to catch cheaters.  

I agree.

2) That since no good method exists to do so, then an invalid method is OK.

i don't agree.  Not even a little.  To call a man a cheater, you had better meet a pretty high standard.

3) You also say that no method is 100% reliable.

I'm sure that we all agree.  But you thereby imply that what was used was quite reliable, just not 100%.  This is exactly what we are all refuting.  It isn't reliable AT ALL, as used.  Even the people that create and maintain the tool say so.  When Bob offers alternative data that seems better tuned to the situation, it is ignored.  THAT is the issue.

RDXC always seems to introduce something far more suspect than that which they claim to be trying to address.  We call foul.

Drew K3PA 
-----Original message-----
From:cq-contest-request at contesting.com
Sent:Wed 10-05-2016 11:00 am
Subject:CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 166, Issue 13
To:cq-contest at contesting.com; 

Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
cq-contest at contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cq-contest-request at contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
cq-contest-owner at contesting.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power (Igor Sokolov)
   2. Re: RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power (Jeff Kinzli N6GQ)
   3. Re: RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power (Pete Smith N4ZR)


Message: 1
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:51:50 +0500
From: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at gmail.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
Message-ID: <102699C4E67641D99030F6148E629D57 at cdcmobile>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";

I am not going to be on any side of the argument. But we all know that power 
cheating exists and proliferates. It has become especially acute  after the 
introduction of the new WRTC selection rules which allowed LP category 
compete against HP for the slot in WRTC.

IMHO RDXC should be commended for pioneering the battle against power 
violations even though their attempt is not fully approved by some.

RDXC can be criticized for their approach but can critics offer other 
reliable methods of fishing out power violators. I do not think that a 100% 
reliable method exists.
Does it mean that contest community should not pay attention to power 
violations? I do not think so. Otherwise, why have different power 
categories in the rules when these rules cannot be enforced.

 The simple solution would be to drop separation by power and have all the 
participants compete in one power category.  But would such a radical step 
be to the benefit of the contest community? Would it increase participation? 
I think not.
Then why don't we as a community use this precedent and try to find a 
solution? Let's work out methods of verification of power cheating that 
would be acceptable by a majority of the participants. This will be to the 
benefit of all the contest sponsors where  power categories exist.

Disclaimer: I have no relation to RDXC committee and not competing for slot 
in WRTC. I just like the art contesting and want make better.

73, Igor UA9CDC 

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list