[CQ-Contest] Disqualified callsigns - CQ WW SSB contest.

Wed Apr 12 23:42:33 EDT 2017

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your detailed explanation.

I guess what concerns me and some others, particularly non-US amateurs is
that the DQ list was solely competitors outside of CONUS and Canada.

Personally I find it hard to believe that absolutely no one in CONUS or
Canada cheated or otherwise violated the rules. In fact I know that is not
the case and I heard numerous stations transmitting out of band for
example, even one US multi op who was clearly transmitting out of band (as
seen on my calibrated SDR waterfall, below the band edge) while running.
Nothing happened. I'm also sure that some have "cheerleaders" that
repeatedly spot them, possibly at their request. And there are definitely
those that use unclaimed assistance.

These are just examples, but the main point being is that there is the
impression that foreign competitors are being singled out for rigorous
enforcement while stateside and VE gets a free pass. I hope this isn't true
but I and others can't help but have our doubts.

73
Ria
N2RJ

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM <w5ov at w5ov.com> wrote:

> OK - Here goes:
>
> This is in the Results article in the magazine.  If you had an online
> Zinio subscription, you could read it yourself. I understand that paper
> copies are propagating now.
>
> The following is an excerpt from the results article for the CQWW SSB 2016
> contest.  This is as much detail as will be made available publicly, in
> writing, regarding who was DQ'ed for what reason.
>
> Since I wrote it, I'm going to copy the pertinent paragraphs from the
> article here:
> ************************************************************
> <BLOCKQUOTE>
> Cheating:
> One of the most difficult parts of contest adjudication is analyzing the
> submitted logs for possible cheating.  Today, while the task remains
> enormous, the ability to collect globally originated real-time data to
> analyze has made more detection of cheating possible. “Possible” does not
> connote being “easy”.  A lot of hours are invested by volunteers on
> several continents to assure that the contest results reflect the accurate
> results of the efforts of honest entrants.
>
> Assisted Cheating:
> Despite the exponential increases in disqualifications over the last few
> years, there are still those who try to get away with claiming that they
> are not assisted.  The reasons one may cheat are varied and are indeed a
> mystery to many who love this game.  What good does it do for you to
> cheat?  What reward do you think you’ll earn?  Please consider that you
> achieve nothing by cheating, and given the preponderance of data, it is
> likely you’ll be caught, and therefore be disqualified.  No one on the
> CQWW committee takes pleasure in seeing an entrant being disqualified.
>
> Self-Spotting Cheating:
> The CQWW rules clearly state:
> IX. GENERAL RULES FOR ALL ENTRANTS:
> Self-spotting or asking to be spotted is not permitted.
>
> This seems pretty clear.  Yet, this phenomenon seems to be growing as an
> issue.  This year, we have warned and disqualified more entrants for this
> violation than ever before.  Please stop self-spotting!
> <END BLOCKQUOTE>
> ************************************************************
> Back to my email to CQ-Contest:
>
> Every entrant who was likely to be disqualified was emailed at the email
> address they provided with their log. Many of them bounced.  We don't have
> time to chase people down - sorry!
>
> The critique of how long it takes to get the results published seems to
> ignore how much work is involved in analyzing logs that from those who
> have cheated.  Over half of the total violators only received a warning -
> this time.  So, fewer than half of those who were found to have been
> cheating ended up actually being DQed.  So, that means there were between
> 150 and 200 logs that were identified as containing rule violations of one
> sort or another.  The vast majority are in the two categories noted in the
> above quoted material.  Thousands of entrants' logs have no evidence of
> cheating in them whatsoever.
>
> Nothing arbitrary or capricious occurs in the DQ analysis process.
> Instead, it is a tortuous and gut-wrenching activity, not taken lightly by
> anyone involved.  While there are wild accusations by a few of those who
> have been DQed this year, it is safe to say that had they not actually
> cheated, they would not have actually been DQed.  Everyone of those who
> were DQed for self-spotting (for example) were found to have gone through
> extraordinary measures to obfuscate and hide their actions through the use
> of multiple callsigns and other methods.  If it were innocent, and just "a
> couple of friends who didn't know any better" then why use fake callsigns?
>  If it was innocent, they would have just used their normal callsign to
> spot the DQed person, would they not?
>
> So, I'm sure this will continue to be a hot topic, but I have to assure
> the contesting community that no one on the CQWW Committee took any of
> this lightly; no one had an "axe to grind" with any entrants to the
> contest nor had any reason to "want" to DQ anyone.  Such accusations are
> absurd.  There certainly was absolutely no consideration of anything
> related to WRTC activities, past, present, or future and there was
> especially no consideration or concern with who anyone may have had as
> their WRTC team-mate.  All such accusations are also absurd, and
> completely without merit.
>
> In summary:  All accusations of bias or desire to DQ anyone are completely
> false, and without any merit whatsoever.
>
> How to avoid this problem?  Simple!  Don't cheat!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
> For the CQWW Contest Committee
>
> On Wed, April 12, 2017 7:08 am, Ria Jairam wrote:
> > IMO, this is where the whole notion some have that "the CC doesn't need
> > to explain their actions so the cheaters don't know how to beat the
> system
> > "
> > falls apart.
> >
> > Transparency is a good thing and I'm hoping the CC at least gives a brief
> >  explanation as to what rules were violated. Otherwise the decision would
> >  seem arbitrary and capricious, especially since no continental US
> > stations were disqualified.
> >
> > 73
> > Ria, N2RJ
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:09 AM Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I see the notation that this came from the April copy of CQ.  There
> >> goes my first three paragraphs! <g>
> >>
> >> A lot of familiar or semi-familiar calls on that list.
> >>
> >>
> >> I do have to wonder if any of the station(s) that Mike VE9AA & others
> >> have had a legitimate concern about, WRT alleged or potential 'scrubbed'
> >> calls, are on this list.  If that allegation is true (not that I
> >> disbelieve them, but so far we have only heard one side of the story),
> >> and the station(s) involved are on this list, well, it does make one
> >> wonder of that in turn led in whole or in part to the DQ.
> >>
> >> 73, ron w3wn
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>  DXer
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 6:52 PM
> >> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> >> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Disqualified callsigns - CQ WW SSB contest.
> >>
> >>
> >> I saw this on another list. Nothing on the CQWW Blog. Now I see it
> >> here:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://dx-world.net/disqualified-callsigns-cq-ww-ssb-contest/
> >>
> >>
> >> I find the following line disturbing: 'Reports suggest....'
> >>
> >>
> >> Any reason it had to be made public this way? I don't fault the
> >> website, it was a scoop.
> >>
> >> We all want the CC to do its job, but why/how the info got out this
> >> way? Somehow I doubt all these people volunteered the info they were
> >> disqualified.
> >>
> >> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>