eHam Logo

Community
 Home
 eHam.net Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 Speakout
 Strays
 Survey
 My Profile

Resources
 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews



Contest Lists
 3830
 CQ-Contest
 CT-User
 NA-User
 SD-User
 TRLog
 VHFcontesting
 WriteLog

Other Lists
 Amps
 AntennaWare
 Propagation
 RFI
 RTTY
 TenTec
 TopBand
 TowerTalk
 Yaesu

 Mailing List FAQs


Site Information
 About This Site
 Contesting.com Team

Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

Recently the RDXC committee reclassified P3F to high power from low power without publicly providing strong evidence that any infraction had occurred. They concluded was that the contestant was running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10 minutes here and there without any convincing evidence. It appears they used the RBN as their source of information. Should the RXDC contest have to publicly provide convincing evidence before reclassifying a station from LP to HP?

Recent Surveys

Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar titled " Convergence and Change" in the 2015 CQWW CW printed results in CQ magazine. He wrote that the "convergence of personal computers, Internet access, DX clusters, and CW Skimmer have changed the nature of CW contesting". He goes to say that it is "more difficult to police the line between the single operator working alone and those who are using the assistance of DX spotting." In light of this convergence and change is it time to recombine SO and SOA into a single category?
2016-05-28


What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )
2015-07-17


Are you ready the this year's winter contest season
2015-07-05


What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?
2015-04-28


What is your linear?
2015-02-09


View All Survey Questions

Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!


The new CQWW rules say "A competitor who wishes to be judged for a top score in their category must agree to a potential visitation at any time during the contest by an observer appointed by the CQ WW Contest committee. Failure of the entrant to respond to our correspondence or to allow an observer full access to the contest QTH may result in the competitor being removed from award eligibility for 3 years." What do you think about the new rule?
  Posted: Oct 02, 2009   (288 votes, 20 comments) by VE5ZX

  It is about time
  Good rule
  Not sure
  Bad rule
  Ridiculous rule
  Don't care
    (288 votes, 20 comments)
Survey Results
It is about time 32% (92)
Good rule 28% (80)
Not sure 7% (21)
Bad rule 7% (19)
Ridiculous rule 19% (55)
Don't care 7% (21)

Survey Comments
RE:Cheating
How about a polygraph for the top 10 contest winners?

Posted by n5rms on November 14, 2011

About
I think they know exactly where to visit based on remarks
from past operators at those stations.

Posted by W5AO on January 17, 2010

Good Rule? Maybe but..
After reading the previous postings...and all bring up some very good points...I feel it really is a shame that this
even has to be brought up. A person who doesn't have a very high opinion of himself or herself is going to do
whatever they can to get that ego booster no matter what. It's a fact of life...don't look at me...I'm not a high
scorer...just like to contest. And, if you're coming to my house...get here before the contest starts or wait until I
take a break...it would be at MY convenience. I won't even answer the phone when I'm contesting let alone answer the
door.
What about the people who feel that special "need" to be the ones who perform the inspections? Who would certify
their qualifications and integrity? What would their qualifications be? Would they be compensated? If so, how? If
they're compensated what measures would be in place to prevent boondoggles? Although it's too late I just talked
myself into changing my vote to "Rediculous rule." Yeah....that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Posted by w1kq on September 28, 2009

Don't Care
It's Amateur Radio people! Don't get prize money, spot on Letterman show, congrats call from Obama, or even recognition from wife who thinks staying up for 24 hours on radio is silly, unhealthy, and prevents me from fulfilling honey-do list.
Gotta go now, wife thinks she saw a mouse in the house!

73, Clint NS3Q

Posted by NS3Q on September 26, 2009

Silly
Since a winner gets nothing more than bragging rights, it seems a waste. Who's going to pay the bill for the CQ inspectors for crying out loud?

Posted by n8uze on September 26, 2009

In Advance?
The rule does not say anything about notifying CQ commitee in advance to be qualified for the competition. It says "... Failure of the entrant to respond to our correspondence or to allow an observer full access to the contest QTH may result in the competitor being removed from award eligibility for 3 years." Therefore, the agreement to a visitation would be implicit by entering the contest. Ofcourse, one would have the right to deny the visitation, but would suffer the consequences.

Posted by N3XL on September 24, 2009

Just a thought
The rule states that if you wish to be judged for a top score in your category then notify them. A good strategy for all contesters would be notify them and I mean ALL. Get fellow hams to notify them also even if at the last minute they may not take part in the contest. Several thousands of emails with these intentions stated may just assist them in seeing that their email system can't handle 100,000 emails in one week.

Rich
N4ESS

Posted by N4ESS on September 17, 2009

Ridiculous
I can't take it seriously because:

1. I must tell The Lord enough in advance that I want to win.

2. What happens if I win but didn't tell in advance that I want to? Am I still eligible to win or wins the guy with a half of my points but with a judge at the site?

3. Who will carry the expenses bound to attendance of the judge?

4. Who cares if the contest site is accessible to others (expedition sites, political reasons, additional expenses etc.). You should send a female judge when I will activate Mt. Athos :-)

5. Who will guarantee that the judge is a honest person, who will not make a negative decision blemishing me for whatever reason?

6. Who will be responsible for incidental injury of the judge (biten by my dog etc. :-)

7. What happens if the judge can't sustain my smoking, my pets, my odorous cheese or me in person?

7 reasons is enough, there is a lot of other reasons making possible problems if an extraneous person should go to a contest with me/us. It is a ridiculous idea because it is dictated by potential cheaters or pursuits of the organizers to prevent cheating. It is a 'guilty' presumption!

Posted by ok1rr on September 7, 2009

not sure
What kind of cheating is it that we are trying to control?
Super power? pfooie... You can put super power in my hands and I still will not beat a K1AR or a K5DX... Or a K8GL running a pair of 3-500's with an 80 foot tower on a city lot and still makes 2 million plus, points,...

Using packet? Not really an issue as the non assisted folks seem to hold their own quite nicely.. Since the packet genie is out of the lamp and cannot be put back, let everyone use it who wants to - problem solved - without having separate categories... Yes, the old, pre-packet records will now be obsolete, so what? Progress has been inevitable since the day they outlawed spark...

I could go on and on about each suspected form of cheating, but - The real issue is actually putting people on a plane and showing up at the door of the suspected cheaters... Show me the money! You don't have it and it is not going to happen...

Denny - k8do

Posted by K8DO on September 4, 2009

Well
It is shameful that it might actually come to that.

I agree with K2XA Don't threaten something you are unwilling to do!

Let's visit this issue again when it actually happens. (IF IT EVER HAPPENS)

N5ER

Posted by N5ER on September 1, 2009

No hollow threats!
When our children were very young my wife (who read every child-rearing book available) cautioned me, "Never make a threat that you are unwilling/unable to carry out." Otherwise you lose all credibility. Until the contest committee actually goes out and visits someone, no one will believe that they will do so.

Posted by k2xa on August 31, 2009

Change the strategy!
I advise to
1. reduce the maximum operating time for SO to 36 hours or even 24 hours (You add another variable in to the game)
2. allow packet for all categories
3. create categories for full time (e.g.36 hours) and half time effort.

Look at the Russian DX Contest or WAEDC - nobody complains about packet cheating...

73 Ivan OE1DIA/OM3LA

Posted by oe1dia on August 31, 2009

Psychological Warfare
I see this new rule as more psychological than physically enforcable. If some of the top stations believe that others are "getting away with it", they may try to do the same. On the other hand, if there is a common belief that virtually all stations are adhering to the rules, then there should be no reason to do otherwise. It's hard to believe that some top stations would deliberately cheat just for a piece of wood or bragging rights. What's the fun in that?

Jerry VE6CNU

Posted by VE6CNU on August 27, 2009

AA5JG - why go to KH6? Why not come down here
to VK6. It a great place in October!

You would be very welcome in my shack!

;-)

John
de vk6hz

Posted by vk6hz on August 27, 2009

After the fact wont work
A real cheater will reconfigure well in advance of any visitation.....

George NE2I

Posted by NE2I on August 26, 2009

What ever happened to honor?
I always thought Amateur Radio was based on an honor system. When I was a novice I was allowed to operate 75 watts CW. My DX-60B would do 90 watts. I never ran the 90 watts; not that it would make any difference on the receivers end, but I was honor bound to keep within the rules. I sleep good at night knowing that I follow the old school of honor in the system. Oh, by the way, I sleep good after a contest, even if I never win. Wonder how the cheats sleep?

Posted by NS8O on August 25, 2009

yes, but questions...
Yes, I agree with the CQ WW Contest committee, it's time to do something. But I see some problems to do the things real.

1. Somebody from CQ WW Contest committee wants to cover the whole world to observe some contest QTHs. Yes, it's possible to do it in Europe, Japan, USA. But who will do it in Africa or Oceania? What about contest DXpeditions in rare countries?

2. I agree with Jukka OH6LI. Visitor that comes in during a pileup is a killer for single operator category. Someting like that happens to John ON4UN some years ago during CQ RTTY contest, when the observer from PTT comes during the pileup.

3. When you are home (or in your contest QTH) alone with headphones on your head, in the huge pileup, you can't hear somebody in a front of your doors :-)

Regards

Rich OM2TW / OK8WW
Member of OM0C Contest Crew
(also in CQWW contests as C52C, C50C, PZ5Z, 3B8/OM0C, OM7M, OL3Z, etc)

Posted by OM2TW on August 21, 2009

I'll volunteer to have CQ magazine send me at their expense to check on some of the KH6 operations during CQWW.

73s John AA5JG

Posted by AA5JG on August 20, 2009

Good rule
This may not be enforcable, but it is a step in the right direction. I doubt anyone is gpoing to visit ZD8 or VQ9 or even KH6 for that matter, but hopefully the packet cheats and the 5kw ops may have someone at their doors. I applaud the committee for at least trying to do something.

73 Bill KH7XS/K4XS

Posted by k4xs on August 20, 2009

Not sure
There are good sides to this.
But a visitor that comes in during a 200Q/h pileup is not a good thing for an honest operator.
Just opening the door to anyone will make the operator loose frequency, at least.

So, there are good sides to this.
But as a whole solution, I am not sure.


73,
Jukka OH6LI

Posted by OH6LI on August 19, 2009

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!