[CQ-Contest] High power reclassification

[Kelly Taylor]

Hi Igor,

Comments below.
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Drew,
> 1)Yes it is my argument

Good.

> 2)No it is not my argument.
> Invalid method is not OK if it is invalid. Since I do not know the details of the method I am not in a position to make a judgment.

Also good.
> 
> 3) I do not know the method which is 100% reliable. May be someone else does. But should this be the reason to stop trying to find the solution to the problem that gets more and more out of control ? Isn't it better to try something then sit and do nothing? And by the way, I did not imply that 'what was used was quite reliable'. If you got it this way I did not mean it. I only wanted to say that criticism is constructive when it offers better alternative to what is being criticized.

Yes, but once a system has been devised that works, not by throwing people under buses without allowing them to defend themselves.

73, kelly, ve4xt 

> 
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
> 
> P.S. It is midnight here so there will be no other posts from me.
> 
> 
>> Igor,
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 73,
>> 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
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> 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";
>> reply-type=original
>> 
>> 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