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

Sat Nov 5 22:42:24 PDT 2011

Kim,

I forgot a few things in my previous email.

Quick delivery of Final Results is excellent, but this new policy also adds
one minor disadvantage, namely much less time for detailed analysis of
certain logs to determine whether they complied with the entry chosen by
the competitor.

For an organizer to dare to move or DQ a station based on violations of
power usage of assistance, a lot of time-consuming analysis needs to be
done. This year, such deep analysis could not have been performed with the
huge amount of logs and with the desire to publish quickly.

One can perhaps say that the advantage of quicker Final Results somewhat
reduces the quality of the log-checking and analysis. For good or bad, who
am I to determine? Quick Final Results are for sure good, but there is also
an important component related to judging and not only compiling results.

Also, it would have been appropriate to officially announce the station(s)
(and for what reasons) who were moved from one category to another. This to
comply with the publishing of many participants for the 3500-3510 violation
that still did not end up in any penalties. To be moved from a category is
according to my understanding a "bigger crime" than violation of the
3500-3510 segment, although both violations for sure must be taken
seriously.

73 de RA/SM6LRR, Mats

011/11/6 Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr at gmail.com>

> 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
>>
>
>