Could all the cluster owners provide the contest sponsors a list of
every call that connected to their systems during the contest period?
Would that work?
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 5/15/2016 7:48 PM, kd4d@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Doug:
There are many forms of cheating available to entrants in the single operator categories
that are very difficult or impossible for contest sponsors to detect. Unclaimed
"Assistance" is one.
Four others that come to mind immediately are:
1) Multiple operators contributing to single-operator efforts
2) Remote Receivers
3) Power cheating in QRP and Low Power categories
4) Power cheating in high power categories
I don't think cheating should drive the future of radiosport. The contest
sponsors can't eliminate cheating - I admire and support their efforts but I
don't expect them to catch everyone who cheats.
I don't support eliminating rules just because cheating is hard to detect.
That path ends with no rules at all - all competitive games I can think of need
rules.
73,
Mark, KD4D
----- Original Message -----
From: kr2q@optimum.net
To: "cq-contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 8:33:22 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change
I see two perspectives to the discussion about combining SO with SOA:
1. What do the entrants want?
2. What is the contest sponsor capable of?
Randy's surveys have shown that (on a high level), EU wants them combined but
USA doesn't.
EU has more entrants than the USA. Should that be factored in? Should
one-man-one-vote count?
Most entrants have no idea what the contest sponsor is capable of. Looking at
the DQs might
give an indication of which contests look/care. Some contests, with a
separation for these
two categories, NEVER DQ ANYONE for unclaimed use of "assistance," to use the
CQ terminology.
What should entrants read into that? For those who are vocal about keeping the
separation,
what do you think about the "other" contests (not CQWW on Oct/Nov) that NEVER
DQ for
unclaimed assistance? Is ignorance bliss?
For me, it is a matter of ethics on the part of the contest sponsors/log
adjudicators. If the
tools available do not allow for detecting "unclaimed assistance," is it
ethical for the sponsor
to keep the categories separate, implying that "they can tell" and thereby
implying a degree of
confidence in the published results?
What is the expectation of the entrants in looking at results? Does the
entrant EXPECT that
because the categories are separate, that the results are necessarily bullet
proof? How about
"close enough?" Something else?
Randy said, "It has also made it more difficult to police the line between
[paraphrasing] SO vs SOA."
What exactly does that mean?
Conjecture for Discussion:
What if it means that subtle (smart?) use of assistance, entered as not SOA,
cannot be proven?
What if subtle use of assistance means that it can't even be found?
Do the entrants still want two distinct categories IF (say, for the top 10),
such abuse could not
actually be accurately adjudicated? How would we, the entrants, react? What
is our expectation
of the contest sponsor?
PROMPTING QUESTION
Is it more important to maintain two categories for the sake of having them
separate or is it more
important that the published scores PER CATEGORY mean something?
de Doug KR2Q
PS..if you want to know my opinion, I would like to see the categories remain
separated, but only
if the separation has meaning.
_______________________________________________
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
|