[CQ-Contest] DXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

Drew Vonada-Smith drew at whisperingwoods.org
Thu Oct 6 12:10:13 EDT 2016

I think we understand the arguments for the QSO elimination and the no credit both ways for busted calls.  Problem is, the arguments hold no water, as many point out below.  This is why no other major contests follow these procedure, and all have smaller score reductions.  Tossing out every contact that is a nuisance to verify is no solution.  And taking such a radical position should be noted in rules.  Others don't publish such detail because they don't do such unusual things!

Saying that the sender is partially responsible for a busted exchange is complete hogwash 90%+ of the time.  We are sending using PCs and only gross incompetence would cause this.  It penalizes based on signal strength and not skill, just the opposite of what we want.  Case closed.

Tossing out uniques that are causal contacts is also baloney.  These contacts are very easily verified when a pattern is noticed.  Detecting a pattern of high uniques is trival, and they can be spot checked if needed.  Bringing causal operators into contesting should be a GOAL, not something to avoid.  Any significant amount of cheating resulting from this is easily detectable.

I am thinking that a lot of this is just laziness and excuses for using some old log checking software someone designed ages ago.

As for another noted comment I am seeing, yes, I do think it is time to complain to WRTC about this.  And yes, I have already boycotted this contest.

Igor, I do acknowledge that you want to bring the conversation to one about power cheating.  I support you in that, but this RDXC conversation regarding Bob is still in play and it is an important one..

Drew K3PA 

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:53:24 +0500
From: Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com>
To: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com>
Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] DXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
<CALhK8m4031d6zw6-niaG=rmtFQQ8j62ni42z++13NLzaeQBcJg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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>:

> 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