First of all, I have no self-interest in any of this, just an "innocent
bystander" who was lucky enough not have any friends spot me in either CQWW
CW or SSB ;)
Bob, if your (i.e. the Committee's) basis of disqualification of T48K were
obvious and persistent on-the-air requests for spotting as confirmed by SDR
recordings, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
At issue is the methodology you used to accuse and ultimately disqualify a
lot of people of self spotting based on either of two events:
1) A spot was made when there was a drop in the rate
2) A spot was made shortly after a QSY
If you observed this done by a spotter more than once or twice, you arrived
at the conclusion that there was obviously collusion and that was your basis
for sending a disqualification letter. You dismissed the possibility that
a friend could sitting on a DX friend's frequency and listening to his DX
friend running. When the rate dropped, that would be the logical point to
respot. Your conclusion in this situation (#1), however, was that this
was clearly a sign of direct communication with the DX station - huh?
Similarly, when the DX changed frequency and the spotter respotted him
within a minute or two, you concluded that there was direct communication
between them. As an experienced op yourself, you know that when a DX
station changes frequency or band, especially a loud station from the
Caribbean on a quiet band, it is not difficult to find him. This is
especially easy with the use of waterfall displays where a mouse click from
one loud signal to another will quickly (within a minute or two) locate the
new frequency. In your DQ letters, however, you presented this
situation (#2) as undisputable proof of collusion.
Your methodology may be a good way screening for possible violations, but
any logical thinking person would agree that is not proof. This is akin
to the use of uniques analysis routinely done on all logs. A large number
of uniques in a log is a SUGGESTION of miscopied calls and/or padding a log,
but is not de facto evidence of busted calls or log padding, without further
investigation (cross-checking, etc.). It seems the Committee did not
avail themselves of that additional effort and hastily jumped the gun.
As far as "excessive" spotting, I've never seen anything in the rules that
or contest etiquette that limits how many times someone can spot. If a
guy wants to spend the weekend SWL'ing and putting out spots, whether as a
cheerleader for a friend or just to have the satisfaction of filling out
someone else's band map, that is his choice. This is all under the
assumption that there is no direct communication between him and a contest
station - he is doing this completely on his own. KR2Q's guidelines in
the CQWW blog to limit spots by friends is completely unenforceable and
unrealistic. It is ludicrous to disqualify someone just because a friend
was unknowingly trying to help him, which is exactly what happened with T48K
and undoubtedly others.
So bottom line - you claim in your last post that T48K was disqualified
based on SDR recordings of on-the-air spot requests, yet your criteria for
disqualification that you presented in the DQ letter to him and others was
the methodology described above. So which was it?
Once again, I would propose that this whole issue go away by a rules change
allowing self-spotting for everyone, however it's implemented. Let's have
the Committee focus on the really serious issues facing contests, which are
excessive power, use of distant remotes for receiving and transmitting and
multi-ops submitting as single ops. These are the much more serious issues
which deserve attention and which really undermine the integrity of this
sport.
--- Rich K1CC
"Friends don't let friends spot you"
On 4/17/2017 2:36 PM, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
> OK. That's enough.
>
> There was apparent evidence of off-air communication with VE3XIN and
> T48K in approximately 60 suspicious spots of T48K.
>
> To confirm this and other claims of innocence, SDR recordings of T48K
> were evaluated.
>
> During this review, several instances of T48K requesting to be spotted
> over the air, directly in violation of the rules were noted.
>
> At that point, no further investigation was necessary and the
> Disqualification confirmed.
>
> Those are the key facts of the T48K DQ.
>
> There were no hunches, feelings or other unsubstantiated reasons for
> the T48K DQ.
>
> No "friends" spotted anyone a few times leading to a DQ.
>
> 73,
> Bob W5OV
> CQWW Contest Committee
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|