[CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

Bob Henderson bob.5b4agn at gmail.com
Wed Oct 5 17:30:24 EDT 2016

I share your concern Igor.  I think most contesters do.  I have no
complaint over efforts to improve fairness in contesting,  indeed I support
and applaud all that are well considered and implemented.  Sadly I have
seen absolutely no evidence RDXC committee's approach gets close.

The primary issue is this:

If analysis is good enough to be used to attack someone's reputation, it
should be good enough to stand the test of independent scrutiny.

It is unacceptable for a few individuals in a frenzy of false belief to
contrive unsubstantiated allegations then use unbridled power to invoke
damaging sanctions with impunity.

Over the past 8 weeks I have responded promptly, fully and truthfully to
all inquiries made by the RDXC committee via RA3AUU.  The input I have
provided has been summarily dismissed as not interesting.  All requests for
access to the evidence supporting the sanction taken have been denied.

While I cannot rule out the RDXC committee having carried out the elaborate
analysis claimed by UA1AAF he provides no evidence they did.  If it exists,
it anyway reaches a wholly erroneous conclusion.

I should have thought a team competent enough to produce the claimed
analysis and confident enough to rely upon it to blacken another man’s name
would feel obliged to stand behind it, making it available for independent
review.  Of course this would require a degree of integrity.

My note to the RDX Committee was sent 3 weeks ago, immediately following
release of preliminary results.  The reply from UA1AAF bears today’s date.  Why
the delay?  I have a pretty good idea.

It seems highly unlikely any reply would have emerged at all but for my
conversation with RA3AUU on Monday, the details of which were made
available on this reflector.

The intent of the note appears clear:

1)      To lend credibility to the conclusion reached and the action taken,
through creation of an illusion of elaborate analysis underwriting the same.

2)      To close down discussion.

I find this very disappointing albeit entirely unsurprising.

The timing of the note from UA1AAF suggests to me this claim to elaborate
analysis may have been inspired by notes to this reflector from G3WW,
VE9AA, N4ZR, EA5RS and others who drew attention to many of the pitfalls
inherent in superficial analysis of RBN data.  Anyone setting out to defend
the indefensible might well find these notes useful.

In making this observation I am in no way criticising the contribution to
the debate made by these gentlemen.  On the contrary I am most thankful for
it.  Sadly those without scruples will grasp at anything.

Talk is cheap.  My reputation is not.  It has been established over a
lifetime.  I take exception at it being attacked so arbitrarily.  I suspect
you would too if you were similarly attacked.

Mention of comprehensive analysis does not constitute proof of its
existence.  Hard evidence available to independent scrutiny is what is
needed but it continues to evade us.

Bob, 5B4AGN

"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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list