[TOEC] [CCF] SAC CW - Low Power and QRP results Europe(compared to HP Unassisted)

Sat Nov 5 22:13:42 PDT 2011

Kim,

Thanks for the answer and for describing the ambitions of the SAC CC for
the future.

Indeed, this is not an easy problem and I do not think that we in
Scandinavia would have a unique formula to solve the issue for ourselves in
SAC when noone else has been able to find this magic tool.

It is good that the SAC CC 2011 organizers showed one example (although I
am convinced that more violators could and should have been moved from this
LP category).

What I was asking for was to consider the introduction of adding LP and QRP
Assisted cateogories in line with the decision to introduce the HP Assisted
category this year. The new HP Assisted category solved (I dare to say)
almost all issues related to Assisted or Non-Assisted questions. The HP
Unassisted category might not have been so hot as before, but I am sure
that participants enjoyed playing on fair and equal levels.

My opinion is that people wanting to work unassisted and struggle for high
positions (also in LP or QRP categories), should also be able to do so in a
clean environment, without feeling disappointed that other participants
have used not allowed assistance. I would be pleased to sponsor a plaque
for Single Operator LP CW or Single Operator QRP CW UNASSISTED. I
understand the concern for expanding the amount of categories and plaques,
but for the joy of traditional unassissted contesting, I am convinced that
volontary sponsors for plaques in those categories could be found in
Scandinavia or abroad.

Again - BIG THANK YOU for your personal efforts, and for everyone else
making the SAC 2011 a true success!  I have said it before, but it can
never be repeated too many times - Team Finland did a faboulous effort.
Congratulations!

Next year it is up to Sweden and other countries in SAC region to show
signs of improvment in line with the Finnish super effort!

73 de RA/SM6LRR, Mats

2011/11/5 Kim Östman <kim.ostman at abo.fi>

> Hi,
>
> Mats, thanks for your positive thoughts. Also, thanks for your words of
> criticism. I appreciate your passion for SAC and your desire to improve it
> year by year!
>
> Various kinds of cheating have been discussed at length on the CQ-Contest
> e-mail list this autumn. May I start by quoting you from there as
> background
> to the current discussion:
>
> "We will NEVER solve the problem with Power Cheating through rules or
> checking from the contest sponsors." ... "The Power Cheating can never be
> enforced by contest sponsors - it can ONLY be changed by ousrselves!"
> http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2011-September/095322.html
>
> The discussion showed quite well that the world contest community has
> failed
> to solve the problem. Thus, I wonder how the SAC CC could now suddenly have
> a magic wand at its disposal to take care of it? :) But despite the
> problems, catching different kinds of cheating (especially assisted, due to
> the new rules) has been on the agenda of this year's SAC adjudication.
> Based
> on the methods, tools, and data sources we used (in which there is
> certainly
> always room for improvement, and suggestions are always welcomed), one
> top-10 station has been moved from LP to HP Assisted on CW. Up to three
> persons scrutinized certain logs.
>
> You have presented allegations and demands to move LP->HP or disqualify
> stations based on the score list. Your argument already began shifting when
> Timo brought up additional variables, namely those of operating time and
> the
> relative competitiveness of the categories. Let's add to that the
> non-linear
> fashion in which score, QSOpts, and number of mults grow/saturate as a
> function of operating time and geography in a contest like SAC (different
> from CQWW, for example), and it is more complicated still. This doesn't
> mean
> that eyes should be closed, but a simple look at the score list will not
> do.
>
> You also said in this thread: "To be considered a professional Contest
> Committee, the SAC CC must also expose themselves to the risk of being in
> the hot fire for making some sensitive decisions of DQ or moving
> non-realistic entries to other categories. This has NOT been the case with
> the SAC 2011 organization. Despite attacking this complicated issue - SAC
> CC
> 2011 decided to close their eyes and avoid touching this hot potatoe..."
>
> May I rephrase: The 2011 organization has not closed its eyes on this hot
> potato, but it has not made those decisions that *you* wanted it to make.
> Analyses based on various data sources have been conducted to get beyond
> allegations for entries which were "flagged" by the CC. Decisions have to
> be
> made based on solid argumentation and methodology, and if there is
> insufficient evidence, allegations remain just that. As we know from
> working
> life, managerial responsibility brings with it different perspectives and
> things to consider when making decisions.
>
> Again, thanks for your criticism, I appreciate it. We want to continue
> improving. Still, the fact remains that contest organizers worldwide need
> *concrete tools and methods* to tackle problems such as power cheating. Do
> you have some to offer?
>
> 73
> Kim OH6KZP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccf-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:ccf-bounces at contesting.com] On
> Behalf Of Mats Strandberg
> Sent: 5. marraskuuta 2011 17:46
> To: Timo Klimoff
> Cc: CCF Postituslista; TOEC
> Subject: Re: [CCF] [TOEC] SAC CW - Low Power and QRP results
> Europe(compared
> to HP Unassisted)
>
> Timo,
>
> This could be a valid point, but still does not make me convinced when
> comparing Top-10 LP Unassisted with Top-10 HP Assisted.
>
> Three or four of the LP unassisted Top-10 would also have qualified on the
> Top-10 HP Assisted category.
>
> The HP Assisted cateogry in SAC CW 2011 was a hornets nest... with serious
> competition and many big guns using "a kW" and both skimmers and clusters.
>
> To get the amount of mults that some of the LP unassisted achieved (with
> 100
> Watts and no assiatance) is a "true achievement"....
>
> Compare also LP Unassisted with HP Assisted to make up your minds.
>
> 73 de Mats LRR
>
> 2011/11/5 Timo Klimoff <timo.klimoff at dnainternet.net>
>
> > >
> > >It does not require a degree in Rocket Science to make a quick
> > >analysis
> > and
> > >realize that many of the LP scores are unrealistically high both with
> > >regards to QSOs and multipliers, compared to the same unassisted
> > >category in High Power.
> >
> > Dear Mats,
> >
> > for me this looks more like category activity issue, not power cheating.
> > The
> > winner of HP unassisted class CR6K operated only 11 hours - less than
> > half (and was a winner with clear margin)! Unassisted HP class has the
> > lowest level of competition now after establishing assisted class.
> >
> > 73, Timo OH1NOA
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TOEC mailing list
> > TOEC at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CCF mailing list
> CCF at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ccf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOEC mailing list
> TOEC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec
>