Way back when this silly rule was added, I asked the then DXCC manager if
this precluded contest logs being public.
This is his reply:
"Regarding contest logs, we really aren't terribly concerned about non
DXpedition situations.
73, Wayne, N7NG/1 "
While Wayne is no longer there, I would presume that the intent has not
changed.
73,
Bob W5OV
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:w4tv@subich.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 3:09 PM
To: wn3vaw@verizon.net; 'CQ Contest Reflector'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Public access to logs
> Now, as I think has already been mentioned in this
> discussion, the fine print in the ARRL rule is that the log
> restriction is for DXpeditions; so if I understand that
> correctly, that argument is now moot and the integrity of the
> DXCC program is unaffected.
The ARRL/DXCC rules do not say that. The rule in its entirety is:
> 5. The presentation in any public forum of logs or other
> representations of station operation showing details of
> station activity or other information from which all
> essential QSO elements (time, date, band, mode and callsign)
> for individual contacts can be derived creates a question as
> to the integrity of the claimed QSOs with that station during
> the period encompassed by the log. Presentation of such
> information in any public forum by the station operator,
> operators or associated parties is not allowed and may be
> considered sufficient reason to deny ARRL award credit for
> contacts with any station for which such presentations have
> been made. Persistent violation of this provision may result
> in disqualification from the DXCC program.
The only thing the CQWW Committee would need to do is remove
the name/address/etc. data from the head of the Cabrillo log
and rename the log with a random number. At that point, the
logs are entirely suitable for statistical analysis on an
aggregate basis and any one log can easily be compared to the
average of other logs.
However, with the identifying information removed/obscured, it
would be very time and computationally intensive for anyone other
than the committee to associate a specific log with a specific
station in order to potentially abuse the DXCC program.
Simply removing the individually identifying data would allow
the CQWW Committee (and other sponsoring organizations) to
achieve their objectives in making the logs public without
violating the DXCC rules (or forcing contest participants to
violate DXCC rules when they submit a log). Further, removing
the individually identifying information prevents the e-mail
addresses of contest participants from being harvested by
spammers (which can happen under the current system).
73,
... Joe, W4TV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron
> Notarius W3WN
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 6:18 AM
> To: CQ Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Public access to logs
>
>
> ...but not if I didn't know until well after the fact, Igor.
> (Especially since Bill worked the guys on Ducie on 12 meters
> while I was at work & nowhere near a rig!)
>
> And I can argue the other side of the coin, too. For
> example, 5A7A confirmed a QSO with my call on 40 Meter RTTY
> -- which I didn't make, since I'm not set up as of yet for
> RTTY or other digital modes. So presumably, whomever they
> actually worked could check the log and then tell them there
> was an error (which I will gladly confirm)... whether or not
> the error can be corrected being another issue.
>
> Now, as I think has already been mentioned in this
> discussion, the fine print in the ARRL rule is that the log
> restriction is for DXpeditions; so if I understand that
> correctly, that argument is now moot and the integrity of the
> DXCC program is unaffected. And I'm sure that somewhere in
> the fine print of the contest rules, CQ has a statement to
> the effect that submitted logs for any CQ sponsored contest
> become the property of CQ and that they can do pretty much
> whatever they want to with them after the fact. However, I
> also believe that just because you can do something doesn't
> automatically mean that you could or should.
>
> That being said, a decision to make those logs in whole or in
> part publicly available should not, IMHO, be made after the
> fact of submission. As useful as data analysis and data
> mining are (why ask for submission for a SCP database when
> you can just parse the calls out of the submitted logs?) or
> can be, a retroactive decision like this is an unwelcome
> surprise to many. There are many, like our buddy Hans, who
> have their own reasons to not wish their logs out in public.
> You may not know what their reasons are, or agree with them,
> but they are due the respect of the contest sponsor to have
> full disclosure on a decision like this before it is applied.
>
> I would have been more comfortable with CQ's decision had
> they announced that it would be, say, effective for all
> contest submissions in 2008 and forward, and not applied
> retroactively to contest logs already in hand.
>
> 73
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igor Sokolov [mailto:ua9cdc@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 12:49 AM
> To: wn3vaw@verizon.net; CQ Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Public access to logs
>
>
> > Chuck,
> >
> > You're still confused? OK. Let's try it this way.
> >
> > W3WH (who doesn't live that far from me) worked VP6DX on 12
> meters.
> > (Not a contest QSO, incidently!) I didn't.
> >
> > With an open log, it is child's play for me, should I have been so
> > inclined (and I'm not), to look up the exact time of the
> QSO and claim
> > that they actually worked me. Further, with an open log, I
> can even
> > look up adjoining
> > QSO's to "prove" that it was actually me.
>
> You can achieve the same by just listening to W3WH QSO and a
> bit before and after that. I am really glad the logs of CQWW
> participants are published on the web now.That makes me trust
> contest results and gives a lot of useful info when analyzing
> my UBN. It also expose cheaters to the public and allow
> scrutiny of their logs to anyone. I hope other contest
> sponsors will follow. I do not mind DXCC protecting the
> integrity of their program but not at the expense of contest
> organizers who try to make their contests more interesting.
>
> Just IMHO
>
> 73, Igor U9CDC
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|