> You say "To establish RBN analysis as a reliable means of determining power
> cheating — were it even possible — would require extensive, controlled
> experimentation" which I read - "we do not have reliable means of determining
> power cheating yet". Does it mean we give up and let it blossom?
>
I didn't say that, did I? What I am saying is the RDXC method is far from
beyond reproach, and that if we are to develop means of detecting cheating,
it's going to take a whole lot more than examining the RBN data of one contest.
But beyond the absurdity of the RDXC decision, do we really want a situation
where to be competitive, nobody can be barefoot?
Is that really going to serve the contesting committee at large, or only the
narrow interest of those at the top?
Why not eliminate all classes entirely, so the only people who win are those
with mega multi-multi stations?
73, kelly, ve4xt
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mymts.net>
> To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
> Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> As every acknowledged expert on this forum has pointed out, so many variables
> contribute to differences in signal strength that pinpointing a power
> difference as the sole cause, based only on simplistic RBN analysis, is
> absurd.
>
> Using an absurd approach in the absence of one that isn’t is beyond
> ludicrous. It is patently unfair.
>
> That the RDXC won’t respond, that it apparently moved the goalposts every
> time it was challenged (from constant power cheating on all bands to cheating
> only on some bands to cheating only on some bands for periods here and there)
> certainly suggests there’s more to this than a simple misunderstanding of
> data.
>
> It’s like the Salem witch hunt, where officials would drown suspected
> witches: if you lived, you were a witch. If you died, congratulations, you
> weren’t a witch, but sorry about that whole ‘death' thing.
>
> To use P3F as a test case is as absurd as the drowning test. To establish RBN
> analysis as a reliable means of determining power cheating — were it even
> possible — would require extensive, controlled experimentation, not the
> persecution of one amateur.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kelly,
>> I am saying that we should treat this case as a possibility to work out
>> universally accepted methods of pinpointing power violators. That is if we
>> want to keep power categories separate. And that is if we want to stop
>> proliferation of cheating. RDXC made an attempt. Some people found their
>> approach to be incorrect but nobody yet suggested no alternative.
>>
>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mymts.net>
>> To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
>> Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 8:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>>
>>
>> Igor,
>>
>> Are you saying that just because we have not come up with a proven means to
>> determine power cheating, we should merely accept the results of an
>> irrefutably flawed analysis?
>>
>> Even the chief promoter and grand poobah of RBN technology has stated using
>> RBN analysis to determine power cheating is absurd.
>>
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not going to be on any side of the argument. But we all know that
>>> power cheating exists and proliferates. It has become especially acute
>>> after the introduction of the new WRTC selection rules which allowed LP
>>> category compete against HP for the slot in WRTC.
>>>
>>> IMHO RDXC should be commended for pioneering the battle against power
>>> violations even though their attempt is not fully approved by some.
>>>
>>> RDXC can be criticized for their approach but can critics offer other
>>> reliable methods of fishing out power violators. I do not think that a 100%
>>> reliable method exists.
>>> Does it mean that contest community should not pay attention to power
>>> violations? I do not think so. Otherwise, why have different power
>>> categories in the rules when these rules cannot be enforced.
>>>
>>> The simple solution would be to drop separation by power and have all the
>>> participants compete in one power category. But would such a radical step
>>> be to the benefit of the contest community? Would it increase
>>> participation? I think not.
>>> Then why don't we as a community use this precedent and try to find a
>>> solution? Let's work out methods of verification of power cheating that
>>> would be acceptable by a majority of the participants. This will be to the
>>> benefit of all the contest sponsors where power categories exist.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I have no relation to RDXC committee and not competing for slot
>>> in WRTC. I just like the art contesting and want make better.
>>>
>>> 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
|