[CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

Pete Smith N4ZR n4zr at contesting.com
Wed Oct 5 14:33:32 EDT 2016

I seem to recall that CQWW's ill-fated "onsite observer program" was 
intended to address this issue of power cheating (among other kinds), 
precisely because of the difficulty of determining what was going on.  
That was a bust, of course, and died amid a lot of recrimination.  I 
don't see how such cheating can be definitively identified remotely, 
short of doing what the FCC used to do and pull up in front of the 
station with a field strength meter and then go knock on the door.

73, Pete N4ZR
Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
<http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
out the Reverse Beacon Network at
<http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

On 10/5/2016 12:12 PM, Igor Sokolov wrote:
> Kelly,
> I am saying that we should treat this case as a possibility to work 
> out universally accepted methods of pinpointing power violators. That 
> is if we want to keep power categories separate. And that is if we 
> want to stop proliferation of cheating. RDXC made an attempt. Some 
> people found their approach to be incorrect but nobody yet suggested 
> no alternative.
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt at mymts.net>
> To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at gmail.com>
> Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 8:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
> Igor,
> Are you saying that just because we have not come up with a proven 
> means to determine power cheating, we should merely accept the results 
> of an irrefutably flawed analysis?
> Even the chief promoter and grand poobah of RBN technology has stated 
> using RBN analysis to determine power cheating is absurd.
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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