[CQ-Contest] DXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

W0MU Mike Fatchett w0mu at w0mu.com
Thu Oct 6 11:22:32 EDT 2016

CQWW does not toss out all instances where contacts cannot be 
confirmed.  They were able to determine via many ways that the claimed 
contacts were not made in the recent case.  It was not just because he 
was the only station found to work those people.

If you are the only person to work loads of people and mults that nobody 
else has raises a big flag.  For RDXC just to toss out all contacts that 
cannot be cross checked seems extreme and they do not say that in the rules.

Yes they should tell you that in the rules.  It would save people time 
for searching for people not in the contest that are not going to count 

In the end all contest committees can pretty much do what they want as 
the rules say so, however they way they handle these things can have a 
significant impact on participation in future events.

It is debatable if RBN could be used at all to identify power abusers.  
I can think of a number of ways to throw off the numbers from the start 
which would make it even more difficult to make solid conclusions based 
on RBN data.

I think we all agree that if a system is available or can be hashed out 
that would work, we would welcome it, but I think that would need 
approval from the participants.


On 10/6/2016 1:53 AM, Igor Sokolov wrote:
> Mike,
> I agree that RDXC approach to adjudication of logs should have been 
> described in the rules. Having said that I do not know of any other 
> contest sponsors who publish their methods of adjudication in contest 
> rules.
> Let me also tell you that not awarding points for QSO where one of the 
> logs is missing for cross checking allows to avoid situations with log 
> padding that we have recently encountered in CQWW.
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
> 2016-10-06 6:28 GMT+05:00 W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com 
> <mailto:w0mu at w0mu.com>>:
>     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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list