Are the Foxes Guarding the Henhouse?

[W3WN]

[ rant mode on ]
The following email was sent out on the CQ Contest reflector this morning:
------------------------------------------------------
On 05/20/15, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:

http://cqww.com/blog/preview-of-2015-cq-ww-rule-changes/

A number of small edits. See blog post to obtain a preview draft of the 2015 rules. Comments needed by May 30.

Randy Thompson, K5ZD, Director - CQ WW DX Contest
------------------------------------------------------

So, what are these proposed "number of small edits"?

From the CQWW Blog:

------------------------------------------------------
The CQ WW Contest Committee is pleased to provide a preview of the rules for the 2015 CQ WW DX Contest SSB/CW. This is a public review period to invite any comments before the final rules are announced on June 1, 2015.Proposed changes:


Minor edits to Overlay Category definition.
Extended club circle from 175 miles to 200 miles for USA clubs, and from 275 km to 300 km for DX clubs.
Changed definition of QSO Alerting Assistance. Now if the technology only provides callsign or multiplier information it is considered assistance.
Remote stations must use a callsign permitted by the authorities at the station location.
Top scorers are required to submit logs with accurate frequencies.
The Observer Program adds the ability for the Committee to request audio recordings of an operation.

Click here to download the draft rules in Adobe pdf format: cqww_rules_2015_draft1 (http://cqww.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cqww_rules_2015_draft1.pdf) (179Kb)
Please send any feedback to questions@cqww.com before May 30, 2015. Thanks to everyone for their participation and support of the CQ WW DX Contest!
------------------------------------------------------

Now, I don't have a problem with most of these. They make sense, and clear a few things up. The arbitrary size of the "club circle", I'm sure, benefits a few, but really doesn't hurt anything.

But then there's that last entry. (Highlighted above)

The rule in question can be found on Page 7 of the PDF (Under Section XII, Judging:

B. Observer Program: The Committee may request any entrant to accept a visit by an observer during the contest –OR– to provide a complete recording of the contest operation audio as heard by the operator. Failure to do so may result in the entry being disqualified .

In other words, if you don't record your contest op, and you do well, well enough to be considered for a major award... you can get DQ'd.

Incidentally, no where that I can find (at quick glance) in the rules is there a requirement, or even a strong recommendation, that you make a recording of your operation. So you can get DQ'd for... following the rules, and not doing something that the rules don't require.

Right.

So, who does record themselves during a contest? Well, a lot of so-called "elite" contesters do this so that they can go over their log after the contest & verify that they copied a call correctly. Oh, wait... that's prohibited in the rules. (See Section IX, General Rules for All Applicants, Item 9)

Thus... let me see if I get this right...

A participant can't use a recording after the contest to verify a contact (nor should they, but that's not the point), has no other practical reason to make one, and isn't explicitly required to... but if they don't have one, and are asked for it, they can get disqualified.

Sure.

Strikes me that the real purpose of this little rule is to give the people running this thing an excuse to toss out a score that might be out one of their buddies... or them. Stack the deck against anyone who might actually challenge them in a fair event.

Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not one of the Contesting Elite... probably never will be, and I certainly don't want to be. Whenever I have a few spare shekels for the shack, I try to spend it on, you know, the important things... filters, better headphones, replacement coax, one day even a new antenna or two. I don't want or need to waste money on internet bandwidth, recording software and devices, and storage costs (can you imagine how much data the voice recordings from a 6 band multi-mult running all 48 hours can generate?). If someone else wants to waste their money, that's their problem. I try not to waste mine.

And then these same guys wonder why they can't attract or keep new contesters.

[ rant mode off ]

[W2NAP]

I am not liking the look of this, I smell a rat.

I never recorded my HF activities, but this totally reeks of a card stack

[W3WN]

I'm truly hoping that this is just poor wording. But I'm too cynical to believe it.

[NQ6U]

Strikes me that the real purpose of this little rule is to give the people running this thing an excuse to toss out a score that might be out one of their buddies... or them. Stack the deck against anyone who might actually challenge them in a fair event [...]

I don't think it's anything quite that blatant. More likely, it's a tool that they can use to disqualify someone they suspect, but can't prove, is cheating. It's an ill-advised move, though.

[K7SGJ]

If they are saying they may require recorded proof, they should be required to provide the recording equipment.

[KJ3N]

Ah, the joys of not being anywhere near the top..... nor submitting a log in the first place. I don't have to worry about this shit.

Not that I worry about contests; I can't take them that seriously.

[n0iu]

Contesting used to be so much fun when the objective was just trying to see how many stations you could work.

Maybe Burt was behind this! If they make contesting too difficult then maybe we will just stop contesting altogether and go back to the real purpose of amateur radio... emergency communications! Ooops! Damn auto-correct! I meant to say rag chewing!

[KG4NEL]

Out of my two competitive hobbies - contesting and road racing - running is so much easier to score. The clock does all the hard parts, and the only trick is making sure you don't lose the bib halfway through or end up in the woods or something.

[W3WN]

In all fairness... there's been some recent developments.

There was a LOT of flack on the CQ Contest reflector about the audio recording issue. [ If anyone is really interested, check the reflector archives on the contesting.com web site. ] Along with some other issues as well.

Well, Randy K5ZD made a post over the weekend to clarify a few things. One of which was, the audio recordings section has been removed from the latest draft of rules changes/updates. The wording needs clarification (duh).

He also made the point that the contest committee would only ask for the audio recording from competitors that they had contacted prior to the contest, who were asked (in advance) to make said recordings. This new rule was meant for those individuals only, not everyone who entered the contest. This point was not made clear (actually, not made at all), thus leading to the concerns.

I sent him a suggestion on wording to incorporate this request into the rules. Surprisingly enough, he didn't reject it out of hand. So we'll see what happens.