I would like to pass on a few thoughts about the comments made by KR2Q.
I have not seen Randy's article yet, so I cannot comment on it.
First, on a general note, I really object to the phrase "combining SO
with SOA" that is used not only by Doug but by many others in this
discussion. This makes it sound like all operators are being
accommodated in one big, happy category. But it is not a fair
description. What we're really talking about is the elimination of the
single operator (non-assisted) category, the category that has been the
mainstay of the CQWW DX contest since its very beginning. If this were
to happen, single operators would no longer have a category in which
they could compete with each other and would have no choice but to enter
the remaining category that allows (necessitates?) assistance. Those
who wish to operate assisted have been able to operate as they wish for
years. They have been generously accommodated so that they can use new
technology and practices and compete among themselves. Yet now some are
advocating that we deny the same thing to single operators. What a
terrible injustice it would be if those operators were suddenly told
that SO is no longer a category. How can we even think about such a step?
Second, with regard to the EU, in the survey that Doug mentions,
Europeans favoring the so-called "combining" did NOT constitute a
majority of respondents. Of 2,584 EU respondents, 47.1% answered yes,
44.2% answered no and 8.6% answered no opinion. There is a slight bias
in favor, but this hardly represents an EU consensus for "combining" the
two categories.
Furthermore, regarding the overall survey (and not just EU), I am still
trying to understand how it is fair for the survey to ask those who
prefer to operate assisted whether they think the SO category should be
eliminated. Why should their opinions on the subject count? They can
operate the way they want, and their results are compared with others
operating in the same way. Why should they care or have a voice in the
matter? And I can't help wondering what the result would have been had
the question been worded "Do you favor eliminating the single operator
category?" I can't believe that many of my fellow contesters around the
world would answer yes to the question put in this way.
To see what contesters really think, why not look at the categories they
actually enter? 55% of last year's CQWW SSB logs were submitted in the
single operator category. (I have not seen the figures for 2015 CW yet
and not enough data is given in the writeup for 2014 CW.) In the 2015
WPX contests, according to N4TZ, 60% of entrants in both modes entered
the SO category. Do these figures represent any kind of overwhelming
consensus in favor of a single category? Quite the opposite, I think.
And even should SOA logs eventually outnumber SO logs, would that be any
reason to eliminate the SO Category?
As to Doug's questions about what the contest sponsors are capable of
and whether the SO results have meaning, there is no doubt that policing
the line between SO and SOA is difficult and that this is taking up a
lot of volunteer time in the log checking process (at least for the
CQWW). I see at least four aspects to this problem. First is
awareness, or the lack thereof, of the definition of SO, and here I
would suggest a much clearer explanation in the rules (BOLD, RED PRINT)
and in the log submission process. When an entrant submits a SO log, a
window should pop up spelling out very clearly that the submitter is
certifying on his honor that he/she has not used outside assistance
(which should be defined in detail in red print). This may eliminate a
part of the problem. I believe most people want to follow the rules.
Second, despite the log checking efforts, SO results may have less
meaning in certain countries than in others. Some operators in some
countries seemingly have fewer scruples about cheating than operators in
other countries. There is only so much that the contest sponsor can do
about this; it is an issue for the operators in those countries to
solve, not the contest sponsor. Maybe we have to accept that the
results from countries X, Y and Z simply are less reliable than the norm
and push for improvement in the future. That cheating is rampant in X
country is not a valid reason for eliminating the most popular operating
category. Third, yes it is a shame that hundreds of volunteer hours
need to be spent on log checking, but perhaps this is simply the nature
of the beast. Is there a shortage of volunteers to do this work? When
a large percentage of contesters today is retired, is it so difficult to
find volunteers? I do not recall seeing a lot of pleas on CQ-Contest
asking for log-checking volunteers. The log checking process seems to
be getting better and better, no doubt thanks in large part to the
leadership of K5ZD and the many volunteers. I personally trust the SO
results, especially for the top scores, and I believe that most others
do too. And isn't the "assistance detecting" software getting better
and better? Finally, we have recently seen an excellent example of the
good that can come from making logs public. Perhaps logs should be made
public at an earlier stage and the public should be given a role in the
log checking process.
In summary:
What is being proposed is not a "combining" of categories but the
elimination of the most popular category
EU is not overwhelmingly in favor of "combining"
The contester survey needs to be improved
Contesters still enter SO more than SOA
There is much that can be done to improve policing
That log checking presents some difficulties is not a good reason for
eliminating the SO category.
73,
Hal W1NN
On 5/15/2016 8:33 AM, kr2q@optimum.net wrote:
I see two perspectives to the discussion about combining SO with SOA:
1. What do the entrants want?
2. What is the contest sponsor capable of?
Randy's surveys have shown that (on a high level), EU wants them combined but
USA doesn't.
EU has more entrants than the USA. Should that be factored in? Should
one-man-one-vote count?
Most entrants have no idea what the contest sponsor is capable of. Looking at
the DQs might
give an indication of which contests look/care. Some contests, with a
separation for these
two categories, NEVER DQ ANYONE for unclaimed use of "assistance," to use the
CQ terminology.
What should entrants read into that? For those who are vocal about keeping the
separation,
what do you think about the "other" contests (not CQWW on Oct/Nov) that NEVER
DQ for
unclaimed assistance? Is ignorance bliss?
For me, it is a matter of ethics on the part of the contest sponsors/log
adjudicators. If the
tools available do not allow for detecting "unclaimed assistance," is it
ethical for the sponsor
to keep the categories separate, implying that "they can tell" and thereby
implying a degree of
confidence in the published results?
What is the expectation of the entrants in looking at results? Does the
entrant EXPECT that
because the categories are separate, that the results are necessarily bullet
proof? How about
"close enough?" Something else?
Randy said, "It has also made it more difficult to police the line between
[paraphrasing] SO vs SOA."
What exactly does that mean?
Conjecture for Discussion:
What if it means that subtle (smart?) use of assistance, entered as not SOA,
cannot be proven?
What if subtle use of assistance means that it can't even be found?
Do the entrants still want two distinct categories IF (say, for the top 10),
such abuse could not
actually be accurately adjudicated? How would we, the entrants, react? What
is our expectation
of the contest sponsor?
PROMPTING QUESTION
Is it more important to maintain two categories for the sake of having them
separate or is it more
important that the published scores PER CATEGORY mean something?
de Doug KR2Q
PS..if you want to know my opinion, I would like to see the categories remain
separated, but only
if the separation has meaning.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|