[CQ-Contest] DXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
W0MU Mike Fatchett
w0mu at w0mu.com
Wed Oct 5 21:28:19 EDT 2016
The rules do not state that if a log is not sent in that QSO's will be
tossed out. If this is what they mean then they have failed to state
it. If I missed this in the rules my apologies.
*16.* Penalties are counted as tripled good QSO points.
* QSO is penalized for the following:
o incorrectly logged calls (Bad Call)
o incorrectly logged exchange numbers
o QSO is not present in the other station log (NIL)
* QSO neither counted nor penalized for the following:
o other station incorrectly logged entrant's call
o other station incorrectly logged entrant's exchange number
o QSO time in entrant's log and other station's log difference is
more than 3 minutes (except systematic computer errors)
o QSO bands or modes in entrant's log and other station's log differ.
o dupe QSO which is not in the other station's log.
Maybe we are having an English/Russian translation issue Igor. I do
not know what would happen in WRTC I were to work a station that
nobody else worked for a rare multiplier.
I have no problem penalizing both sides of the QSO. Both sides of the
QSO can be sent back and confirmed if necessary. I was curious why I
was seeing such large score reductions. Now I know why.
I think it is odd to penalize people if other people did not send in
their logs as that is completely out of the participants control. Why
would this rule be in place? The organizers felt that logs were
submitted that were not fair representations of what actually happened
on the airwaves? A bit of log manipulation, padding the score here and
there? We have seen this quite a bit lately, so it would not be a big
surprise.
I think this idea could actually work is all entrants were required to
sign up 48 hours prior to the event. 24 hours from the event a list of
entrants would be made available so that you could update your software
to alert you to stations not in the contest and you could choose to work
them or not. It still would not solve the issue where someone fails to
send in a log but if someone took the time to sign up they probably
would send in a log and the organizers would have an email address to
ask for it in the case they forgot, etc.
Radio contests are one of the few sports or maybe the only sport where
the competition/participants are unknown until the contest begins and
sometimes not until the end or when results are published. The number
of participants is unknown and variable over the entire contest period.
On 10/5/2016 12:48 PM, Igor Sokolov wrote:
> Drew,
> This subject has been discussed here on the reflector in the past and
> reasons were explained.
> I will briefly repete them.
> There are two schools of thoughts. Both have some merits and faults
>
> 1) Assumed that sender makes no errors (which is not always right) and
> all the errors are on the receiving side. Therefore sender is always
> awarded points for the QSO and receiver gets all the punishment. The
> down side of this approach is that even in cases when sender knows
> that receiver got one of the letters in the call sign wrong, the
> sender is not motivated to waist time and correct the receiver.
>
> 2) QSO is a team work where team consist of sender and receiver. The
> purpose is to relay correct information (contest exchange) from one to
> another. If this team failed to do it both team mates get punishment.
> The down side of this approach is that sender has very limited control
> over what the receiver gets and put down in the log.
>
> Most of Russian contest (both internal and international) adopted the
> second approach because they see contest as message handling.
> Therefore if log of one of the particular QSO team mates is missing,
> it becomes impossible to verify this QSO and therefore points are not
> awarded. I hope it explains some of the issues raised here but I also
> agree that it would be better if this approach is explained in
> contest rules.
>
> I personally was always a supporter of the first approach despite of
> its shortcomings. But still ready to play whatever the approach is as
> long as number of participants guarantee interesting and lively event.
>
> BTW if during WRTC contest some of the participants would find a rare
> mult who is not really participating in the contest and talk him to
> giving 001 for the log (or just put 001 in the log) then will this QSO
> be counted. Just curious.
>
>
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Drew Vonada-Smith"
> <drew at whisperingwoods.org>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:34 PM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] DXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>
>
>> Rich & Contesters,
>>
>>
>> This is exactly what happened to me in 2015. I asked the same obvious
>> question; If they worked me and gave an exchange, are they not by
>> definition in the contest? My affected QSOs were also confirmed. The
>> issue was not addressed in the response, and there was an attempt to
>> make me feel ashamed or silly for working a station as SN 001. Sorry,
>> I'm not feeling any shame in that...I am just a smart contester
>> getting every mult he can.
>>
>>
>> When RDXC got slow, I started working casual QSO party guys on phone
>> and cross swapping exchanges for both contests. Those contacts were
>> also denied. Why exactly? Just another good contesting move, IMHO.
>>
>>
>> If the meaning is that stations not sending in a log are not counted,
>> then the rules should note that. Of course, most of us would consider
>> such a rule ridiculous. I also doubt that many of us agree with a
>> rule that says *we* lose a QSO when the *other* guy busts the
>> exchange. Yes, they do that; read the rules. These oddities and
>> others are why you see such ridiculous score reductions in RDXC.
>>
>>
>> Comments from the sponsor also seem to imply that policy is set by
>> how the scoring software works, rather than the scoring software is
>> designed based on the rules and policy. I suspect (but do not know)
>> that this is a factor in how these oddities come about.
>>
>>
>> I will not operate RDXC while this type of nonsense continues.
>>
>>
>> 73,
>> Drew K3PA
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:39:43 -0400
>> From: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w at gmail.com>
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>> Message-ID: <d60918e2-074a-ac84-1f43-c5821e657bda at gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>>
>> I basically gave up on Russia DX when I had my score knocked down
>> because I supposedly worked stations that were "not in the contest".
>> Not in the contest? WTF.
>>
>> I worked them; LoTW confirms I worked them. How could they not be in
>> the contest?
>>
>> 73 Rich NN3W
>>
>> On 10/4/2016 9:31 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>> The silence from the RDXC folks is deafening. Not that I ever
>>> operated it seriously, but unless they come forward and explain their
>>> position reasonably I think they may find that participation may drop
>>> in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/4/2016 4:48 PM, Juan EA5RS wrote:
>>>> Ionospheric skywave signal amplitude or strength is a time-varying
>>>> random
>>>> variable with a mean and a standard deviation.
>>>>
>>>> Difference between strengths of two signals is also a random variable
>>>> with
>>>> an even higher standard deviation, even when originated from the same
>>>> location (ever heard of antenna diversity or stacks?), even when
>>>> originated
>>>> from the same antenna on even very closely spaced frequencies (ever
>>>> noticed
>>>> selective fading e.g. on 170 Hz FSK ionospheric signals?). Let alone
>>>> when
>>>> signals originate from different QTHs spaced several kilometers and
>>>> from
>>>> different antennas.
>>>>
>>>> I am not saying RBN data is not useful or meaningful, but to draw a
>>>> strong
>>>> conclusion you have to be sure you take into account that variability.
>>>> Based on all variables involved and all possible side-effects, I
>>>> doubt you
>>>> can assess TX power differences below 10-15 dB with a reasonable
>>>> degree of
>>>> confidence just based on RBN data.
>>>>
>>>> Just my 2 cents
>>>>
>>>> 73, Juan EA5RS
>>>>
>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>>> De: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] En nombre
>>>> de Pete
>>>> Smith N4ZR
>>>> Enviado el: martes, 04 de octubre de 2016 17:16
>>>> Para: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>> Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>>>>
>>>> Just filling in one bit of info - the RBN-based "evidence" received
>>>> from the
>>>> RDXC did not compare signal reports among multiple RBN nodes, which
>>>> would
>>>> have been meaningless for all the reasons Mike enumerated. They
>>>> used the
>>>> Signal Analysis Tool, which limits each comparison to a single RBN
>>>> node.
>>>>
>>>> Even doing same-node comparisons would require knowledge of the
>>>> dozen-plus
>>>> variables that can affect the reported SNR at any given moment. N2QT
>>>> identified one of the most important and disruptive ones - a much
>>>> stronger
>>>> calling station in near zero-beat, but there are a variety of
>>>> others. Using
>>>> these data to assert that Bob was using high power "for 5 or 10
>>>> minutes" now
>>>> and then is simply absurd.
>>>>
>>>> 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 10/2/2016 11:03 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>>>> Using RBN to attempt to prove a power violation alone is absurd.
>>>>>
>>>>> We already know that the antennas are different. 4 Square vs Mono
>>>>> Pole Vertical 80m
>>>>>
>>>>> What feed lines are being used?
>>>>>
>>>>> How old are the feed lines?
>>>>>
>>>>> What quality of feed line is being used?
>>>>>
>>>>> How many radials are being used?
>>>>>
>>>>> Were the coax cabled installed properly?
>>>>>
>>>>> What matching systems are being used?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there tuners being used at P33W?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could there be other losses at P33W from bandpass filters, harmonic
>>>>> filters, switching, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> What power was actually being used at P33W? Is the power limit in
>>>>> Cyprus 400 watts?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the stations locations to water? Topography, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> There could be many other factors that affect why station a is louder
>>>>> than station b in the RBN network.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the reason for looking at P3F's log to begin with? P3F's
>>>>> score is 4th in HP. P3F easily wins LP with his score of 12.
>>>>> million. He beats 9A5Y by 1.5 million points. However 9A5Y beats
>>>>> IQ3IY by almost 2.5 million points. Was 9A5Y's logs checked too? P3F
>>>>> had a great score LP. It also appears that the competition for
>>>>> whatever reason in LP was not as competitive? It was quite close from
>>>>> 2nd place down. It would appear that P3F ran much more than 9A5Y who
>>>>> had more multipliers and almost 700 less qsos.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it hard to believe that P3F was able to amass 500 extra qso's
>>>>> by the accusation of running an amp for 10 minutes here and there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem with a contest chairman asking an entrant if they
>>>>> might have possibly classified their log incorrectly because mistakes
>>>>> happen. If contest committees believe that people are cheating then
>>>>> provide the proof and it better be more solid than what we have heard
>>>>> than this and DQ them. Reclassifying them serves no purpose other
>>>>> than to tell us that you "think" they might have done something. To
>>>>> me that does not cut it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> W0MU
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:15:11 -0400
>> From: "john at kk9a.com" <john at kk9a.com>
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Alpha 87A Alpha Max
>> Message-ID: <946d08c6bb8cc2c7ac56317636b0d983.squirrel at www11.qth.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>>
>> Alpha 87A's are pretty inexpensive now. I am not sure how it works
>> without
>> Alpha Max, I owned one with Alpha Max and it tuned very nicely. My
>> comment
>> regarding this amp is that they are very expensive to repair if you send
>> it back to the manufacture so be cautious what you purchase.
>>
>> John KK9A
>>
>>
>> To:cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Subject:[CQ-Contest] Alpha 87A Alpha Max
>> From:Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
>> Reply-to:k9yc at arrl.net
>> Date:Tue, 4 Oct 2016 13:47:09 -0700
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I'm about to buy an Alpha 87A, early production, without the Alpha Max
>> Firmware. That's the feature that provides auto tuning (as opposed to
>> auto
>> recall of saved settings, which was how the amp was originally built).
>>
>> Some questions.
>>
>>
>> 1) How useful is the Alpha Max auto-tune feature?
>>
>> 2) The new owner of Alpha says the upgrade kit is no longer
>> available. Is
>> there an easy way to add it? That is, are the chips generic? I'm
>> guessing
>> that at least one of the two chips is an EPROM. Is it practical to
>> buy the
>> chips and copy the firmware from another 87A?
>>
>> 3) Is it worth going to the trouble? I would use it for my high dipoles
>> for 80 and 40M.
>>
>> Thanks and 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:30:43 -0400
>> From: w8fj at aol.com
>> To: bob.5b4agn at gmail.com, cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>> Message-ID: <157950a00ce-1f8c-f1b8 at webprd-m65.mail.aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> I have been following this thread for awhile now. There certainly
>> appears to be some shady things going on here. Perhaps there should
>> be an organized effort to boycott next years RDXC event.
>>
>> John, W8FJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob Henderson <bob.5b4agn at gmail.com>
>> To: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wed, Oct 5, 2016 8:38 am
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>>
>> On 15th September, the day following release of the preliminary
>> results of
>> RDXC I wrote the following note to the adjudicators:
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> In your preliminary results P3F entry in RDXC 2016 is listed in the SOAB
>> Mix category. This is not correct. P3F entry was in the SOAB Mix LP
>> category. An Elecraft K3 at no greater than 100W output was in use
>> throughout the event.
>>
>> Please adjust your results to reflect the correct category of entry
>> for P3F.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Unquote:
>>
>> No reply has been received until today. This I interpret to be the
>> follow
>> up to my Skype discussion with RA3AUU on Monday. Full text of the note
>> follows:
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> Dear Bob!
>> Your entry in RDXC-2016 was reclassified from LP to HP.
>> For the decision of reclassifying your entry from LP to HP RDXC
>> committee evaluated and compared several factors simultaneously:
>>
>> Your signal levels and signal levels of other LP and HP stations
>> (excluding peak values) around you within 500-1000 km radius with
>> comparable or better antennas than yours on the same time frames of
>> 15-30-60 minutes and at each of 10-15 points of reception.
>>
>> Your signal levels together with your and other LP/HP stations calling
>> behavior while S&P'ing for unique and distant DX/Oblast mults on 160
>> and 80 m as well as those unique DX/Oblast mults' receiption ability
>> of other LP and HP stations at the different time frames.
>>
>> Your RUNs on 40-80-160 CW and 40 and 80 SSB.
>>
>> Based on these analysis we concluded that during different periods of
>> time you've being using higher power than implies for LP entry.
>>
>> The decision is final.
>>
>> RDXC committee
>>
>> Unquote:
>>
>> *Bob, 5B4AGN*
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 166, Issue 12
>> *******************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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