CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
From: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:33:32 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I seem to recall that CQWW's ill-fated "onsite observer program" was intended to address this issue of power cheating (among other kinds), precisely because of the difficulty of determining what was going on. That was a bust, of course, and died amid a lot of recrimination. I don't see how such cheating can be definitively identified remotely, short of doing what the FCC used to do and pull up in front of the station with a field strength meter and then go knock on the door.

73, Pete N4ZR
Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
<http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
out the Reverse Beacon Network at
<http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

On 10/5/2016 12:12 PM, Igor Sokolov 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


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>