[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Committee blog post - audio recording

Wed Apr 19 10:58:18 EDT 2017

Gerry,

Let me make this brief comment for now.

No one has ever been DQed because a "friend spotted them a lot".

All DQ's related to spotting are far more *heinous* than that.

The concern expressed about this issue is completely without merit.

I am not saying that one should not record their operation.  It is prudent
to do so, and the technology is very manageable today.  Digital storage
devices are cheap today, so there is no excuse there.

These are complex issues and difficult to explain in a concise way via
this medium, but the best advice I can give is "Do not cheat".

If you don't cheat, you have nothing to fear.

73,

Bob W5OV

On Wed, April 19, 2017 9:43 am, Gerry Hull wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, Bob.  Lots of this needs to be in the FAQ.
>
>
> Now, let's combine two scenarios.   You operate a clean contest, and
> finish in the top three, but,  you did not record.
>
> However, some fans spot you a lot during the contest, and you are asked
> for recordings?   Will you be potentially DQed because you cannot produce
> a recording?
>
> "May" and "Required" essentially have no difference in meaning for
> "contenders".    You would be foolish not to record.
>
>
> Also, can you please clear up the issues between the written rules and
> the blog post:  Does recording apply to all categories, or just top
> contenders in single op? Cheating can happen in any category.   Why so many
> requirements on single op and not others?
>
>
> 73, Gerry W1VE
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:48 PM, <w5ov at w5ov.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Dave,
>>
>>
>> Seriously, in all of this, there is one way to avoid all of it.  Do not
>>  cheat.  It is as simple as that.  If you do not cheat it will not be
>> likely you will be asked for anything.
>>
>> If you do cheat, with the proliferation of all kinds of data available
>> and SDR recordings on every continent, contest adjudicators can
>> determine what was going on very easily.
>>
>> As has been seen this year, many more stations were caught and
>> disqualified than ever before.  Last year was the same.  The trend of
>> increasing disqualifications is likely to continue.  If cheating is
>> still rampant, then disqualifications will increase.  Maybe, the higher
>> likelihood of getting caught will reduce the number of those who will
>> cheat next year?  I certainly hope so.  It would be nice not to have so
>>  many disqualifications.
>>
>> Remember too, that MORE warnings were issued this year than there were
>> disqualifications!  So, there could have been more DQs had the evidence
>> been more compelling.
>>
>> The behavior of cheaters is that they apparently believe that it is
>> impossible to "prove" cheating.  While if we use the same standards as
>> required in a court of law, we might not, but this is amateur radio
>> contesting and we have a team of experienced contesters looking at all
>> evidence available, and collectively, what is possible and what is
>> likely is taken into consideration.  Allowing for people who don't know
>> better, or are beginners is also taken into account - if the entrants
>> are forthright and helpful in the analysis.
>>
>> So, what do you do?  Obey the rules.  Do not cheat.  You will likely
>> get caught.  If you happen to win something, and do not cheat, great!
>>
>> Those who won this year were not asked for recordings - because there
>> was no reason to ask them.  Others, who were warned last year about
>> apparent cheating, and were explicitly told that if the behavior was
>> repeated, they would be asked for recordings.  One or more did not
>> comply and their logs were converted to Checklogs as a result.
>>
>> The CQWW committee does not want to do this.  Any thought otherwise is
>> simply incorrect.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>
>> Bob W5OV
>> CQWW Contest Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, April 18, 2017 1:10 pm, Dave Edmonds wrote:
>>
>>> Great comments... How about this scenario.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I start working the contest without a recording knowing that I would
>>> not be able to give it a 'competitive' effort due to the fact that my
>>> wife
>> and
>>> I
>>> are attending a wedding on Saturday. We'll on Saturday morning I
>>> receive
>> a
>>> call from the wedding party that the groom ran away with the maid of
>>> honor and the wedding was canceled..Now I'm not going to the wedding
>>> and
>> I
>>
>>> can devote my weekend to the contest.... Oooopppps... I can't be
>>> competitive because I could win a top 3 spot in the USA and if I win
>>> I
>>> could be DQ'ed.
>>>
>>> What do I do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Don't work the contest competitively (that's no fun).
>>> B. Work the contest competitively and submit a check log (that's no
>>> reward). C. Work the contest competitively, submit a log and bet on
>>> the contest committee not requesting a recording. D. Blow off the
>>> contest and find another wedding to attend.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Dave at wn4afp.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Mark <markzl3ab at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The CQ WW Committee blog post about audio recording is a bit of
>>>> surprise to me.  Up until now I had figured audio recording would
>>>> only be an issue in Oceania for the serious entrants (i.e. entries
>>>> with lots of QSOs and/or hours on the air).  In Oceania a casual
>>>> entry of 1-200 Qs could easily put you in the top three of just
>>>> about any single op single band category, assuming the category even
>>>> had three entrants (I won the Oceania CW 40m QRP
>>>> assisted category and set a new record with one QSO and two points a
>>>> few years back).  In its post the committee quotes the Asian 160m
>>>> low power category.  Looking at the 2016 SSB results there were no
>>>> entrants in that category (assuming there wasn't an entrant(s) who
>>>> was moved to a checklog for not audio recording) so any entry at all
>>>> would have won it. In Oceania
>>>> there was one entrant who made four QSOs.
>>>>
>>>> I would pick most if not all ops who perceive themselves as casual
>>>> would not audio record their entry (or even know they had to).  Is
>>>> it really the Committee's intention to DQ casual entrants who end up
>>>> in the top three due to a lack of other entrants, if they do not
>>>> provide an audio record?  If so then I'd suggest the rules should be
>>>> amended to make it clear that any entry competitive or not which
>>>> ends up in the top three is subject to the audio recording
>>>> requirement because casual ops will not consider themselves
>>>> competitive.  It will of course have the effect of decimating casual
>>>> single category entries in this part of world (such as it is) by ops
>>>> who just enter for fun but who do not want to run the risk of being
>>>> besmirched by a DQ. A better way (and it seems to me contesting is
>>>> heading this way in general) would be for entrants to be able to
>>>> enter any category they like but designate themselves as casual or
>>>> competitive.  If casual then they would not need to provide an audio
>>>> record but could still be listed in the results database for their
>>>> category (assuming they comply with the other rules).  However they
>>>> would not eligible for a certificate which would go to the highest
>>>> competitive entries and who of course would need to provide an audio
>>>> record on request.  Also only competitive entries would be eligible
>>>> to set records and to be listed in the top entrant lists in the
>>>> results write up.  At least this way an entrant can make a conscious
>>>> decision as to how they want their entry to be treated rather than
>>>> run the risk of a DQ if they are unlucky enough to enter a category
>>>> with less than three other entrants.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>> Mark ZL3AB
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Edmonds
>>> PK Ministry Webs
>>> 864.288.6678
>>> dave at pkministrywebs.com www.pkministrywebs.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>