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

Wed Apr 19 11:05:43 EDT 2017

It seems pretty clear in N2IC email that the rules say that top 3 finishers
"MUST" record the contest audio.  Whether he is on the CQWW awards
committee is irrelevant.  That is what the references rules said.

73 John AF5CC

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:46 AM, <w5ov at w5ov.com> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> Since you are not part of the CQWW Committee, what you say is your opinion
> only, and completely irrelevant.
>
> I hope those reading your comments keep that in mind.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
> On Wed, April 19, 2017 9:28 am, Steve London wrote:
> > That sure isn't what it says in
> >
> >
> > http://cqww.com/blog/cqww-2016-ssb-self-spotting-and-
> entrant-audio-record
> > ings/
> >
> > Audio Recordings: Any single operator entrant (see V.A.1) competing for
> > a top three finish at the (a) World, (b) Continent, or (c) USA levels,
> must
> > record the transmitted and received audio as heard by the operator for
> the
> > duration of the contest operation.
> >
> > So if you were #1 in Asia for 160m mono-band, low power, you should have
> > recorded your contest effort.  This rule applies to all categories, not
> > just to single-op, all-band.
> >
> > We sent out multiple requests for entrant audio recordings, as required
> > by the Rule shown above.  Unfortunately, more than half of those
> contacted
> > were not able to comply.
> >
> > Follow all of the rules, including XII.C [Audio Recording] and you be in
> > excellent shape.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Just because one member of the CQWW triumvirate says "Your
> > interpretation is precisely correct" does not mean the other two members
> > agree, nor does it mean that any future member of the CQWW committee will
> > agree. All you can trust are the written rules, and, even they are
> subject
> > to interpretation and arbitrary abuse.
> >
> > 73,
> > Steve, N2IC
> >
> >
> >
> > On 04/18/2017 07:54 PM, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, Mark;
> >>
> >>
> >> Your interpretation is precisely correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >>
> >> Bob W5OV
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, April 18, 2017 7:48 pm, Mark wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Bob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If I may clarify your reply on this topic.  Are you saying:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1.  The Committee will only request audio recordings where they
> >>> believe an entrant has breached the rules. 2.  In this instance where
> >>> the Committee asks for an audio recording and it is not supplied then
> >>> they may DQ the entrant. 3.  Accordingly an entrant will never be
> >>> asked to supply an audio recording simply for the sake of it and then
> >>> DQ'd solely because they
> >>> cannot do so.
> >>>
> >>> If this is the case (and it sounds fair to me) can I suggest it goes
> >>> in the FAQs?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Mark ZL3AB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Dave Edmonds
> >>> <dave at pkministrywebs.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Bob,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for giving the participants more insight into what's
> >>>> happening behind the 'closed doors' of the contest. I'm an admin for
> >>>> the SCQP and I
> >>>> can identify with your philosophy etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> In early 2015, just coming off of the ARRL Centennial, I was
> >>>> working a state QP. I read the rules and knew how to play the
> >>>> contest. After about 6
> >>>> hours into the contest when it got very slow, I self-spotted on the
> >>>> cluster. I knew the rules, but after self-spotting on and off
> >>>> during the Centennial, it was almost a habit. A second after I
> >>>> pressed the "Enter"
> >>>> key, I realized that I broke the rules and bowed out of the contest
> >>>> with a higher score than the ultimate winner. We've all been
> >>>> there... It was a lesson learned.  What good is winning if you
> >>>> didn't play it straight.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've got a digital recorder hooked to the headphone jack of my
> >>>> IC-751
> >>>> for recording purposes. My only problem is that battery life is
> >>>> short and it's just one more thing to have to monitor during a
> >>>> contest..I'll try to keep it going during the next WW or other major
> >>>> contest.
> >>>>
> >>>> 73s Dave WN4AFP
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dave Edmonds
> >>>> PK Ministry Webs
> >>>> 864.288.6678 <(864)%20288-6678>
> >>>> 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
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>