Hi Igor,
Comments below.
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Drew,
> 1)Yes it is my argument
Good.
> 2)No it is not my argument.
> Invalid method is not OK if it is invalid. Since I do not know the details of
> the method I am not in a position to make a judgment.
Also good.
>
> 3) I do not know the method which is 100% reliable. May be someone else does.
> But should this be the reason to stop trying to find the solution to the
> problem that gets more and more out of control ? Isn't it better to try
> something then sit and do nothing? And by the way, I did not imply that 'what
> was used was quite reliable'. If you got it this way I did not mean it. I
> only wanted to say that criticism is constructive when it offers better
> alternative to what is being criticized.
Yes, but once a system has been devised that works, not by throwing people
under buses without allowing them to defend themselves.
73, kelly, ve4xt
>
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>
> P.S. It is midnight here so there will be no other posts from me.
>
>
>> Igor,
>>
>>
>> If I can rephrase your argument, you are saying:
>>
>>
>> 1) Congrats to RDXC that they want to catch cheaters.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>
>> 2) That since no good method exists to do so, then an invalid method is OK.
>>
>> i don't agree. Not even a little. To call a man a cheater, you had better
>> meet a pretty high standard.
>>
>>
>> 3) You also say that no method is 100% reliable.
>>
>> I'm sure that we all agree. But you thereby imply that what was used was
>> quite reliable, just not 100%. This is exactly what we are all refuting. It
>> isn't reliable AT ALL, as used. Even the people that create and maintain the
>> tool say so. When Bob offers alternative data that seems better tuned to the
>> situation, it is ignored. THAT is the issue.
>>
>>
>> RDXC always seems to introduce something far more suspect than that which
>> they claim to be trying to address. We call foul.
>>
>>
>> 73,
>> Drew K3PA
>>
>> -----Original message-----
>> From:cq-contest-request@contesting.com
>> Sent:Wed 10-05-2016 11:00 am
>> Subject:CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 166, Issue 13
>> To:cq-contest@contesting.com;
>>
>> Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
>> cq-contest@contesting.com
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> cq-contest-request@contesting.com
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power (Igor Sokolov)
>> 2. Re: RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power (Jeff Kinzli N6GQ)
>> 3. Re: RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power (Pete Smith N4ZR)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:51:50 +0500
>> From: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
>> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>> Message-ID: <102699C4E67641D99030F6148E629D57@cdcmobile>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> 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
|