ad: Hamgear-1

Has WRTC run its course?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by K0HB, Jan 11, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: l-assoc
  1. KS2G

    KS2G Subscriber QRZ Page

    No indication of nudity (except perhaps male from the waist-up due to the heat in the operating tents), sex, violence or drugs, but given some of the aggravations that the book describes that some of the teams encountered, I'm sure that there was some "adult language" ;)
     
  2. VA3VF

    VA3VF Ham Member QRZ Page

    OK, found the book. It was the 3rd place that was decided on the basis of one unique QSO that was nullified (pages 219-221).
     
  3. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sure it does, because then the unique shows up in at least two submitted logs.

    The UBN reports published by CQ show that the vast majority of suspected uniques are instead busted calls and are purged and penalized as such; true uniques are reported but no action is usually taken. But there are still tens of thousands of truly unique QSO's logged each event. Some other smaller contests (EA-RTTY) just do not score any unique QSO's.

    That is incredible. What year WRTC? Is that literally ONE UNIQUE QSO in the entire log? Or they disallowed many alleged uniques that resulted in a one QSO differential? The latter is much more justifiable.

    It seems that contest org's are now turning to using the DX Cluster IP addresses SDR;s and RBN's to verify activity, and demanding top scorers submit monitor / received audio or data files documenting the entire contest. It would be interesting to see what percentage unique calls are encountered and verified as legit in such recordings.
     
  4. W3WN

    W3WN Ham Member QRZ Page

    No, it’s not that “it seems.” They are.

    Like I said earlier... WRTC has caused changes, directly and indirectly, in how contests are run and in how contest rules are written.

    The days were one was presumed to be operating within the rules simply based on their word are gone. Now it presumed, as a practical matter, that unless you submit your log and posted it publicly, you must be hiding some indiscretion or level of dishonesty.

    The implied presumption is that because there are (sadly) a few that will do anything to place themselves into the WRTC, everyone is equally suspect and should be equally treated as guilty until proven innocent. On paper, if you read the rules, you may say “bushwhack!” or a similar epithet... but that is the way all too many contests organizers now run things.

    The proverbial baby has long since been tossed out with the bath water.
     
  5. KJ4VTH

    KJ4VTH Ham Member QRZ Page

    While I might never qualify for WRTC it was a lot of fun working them a few years ago and even better when the cards started piling in. As someone said it's like the Olympics. You might not be able to participate directly but you can still have fun watching. Or you can bitch & moan. That happens a lot in both worlds.
     
    WU8Y likes this.
  6. VA3VF

    VA3VF Ham Member QRZ Page

    The book covers the 2014 WRTC in the US.

    There is no mention of other uniques, maybe because they were not as important as this one.

    Yes...things are changing. The CQWW seems to be the leader, as far as using new hardware tools and analytical methods. CT1BOH is a real wizard (in the good sense of the word) with logs. He has uncovered some interesting things in the past couple editions of the CQWW.

    It's not your dad's contest anymore.:)
     
  7. VA3VF

    VA3VF Ham Member QRZ Page

    Not sure what you mean there. If a log is not submitted to the contest robot for scoring, what do they (contest organizers) care?

    Are you talking about people simply claiming they did this or that in order to qualify for the WRTC? Then I understand. The qualifying stage using submitted contest logs is the way to go, and cheating in any of the qualifying contests will disqualify the pretender.

    I also remember reading about selling a limited number of WRTC spots, as a way to offset some of the costs of hosting the event. Maybe it was framed as sponsorship, do not remember. Was that ever done?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 5:23 AM
  8. NN3W

    NN3W Ham Member QRZ Page

    Good grief. The argument over public logs was about 11 years ago at this point. Participation in CQWW has never been higher (8700+ logs in 2017 SSB versus 5100+ in 2008 SSB; same trend in CW). Transparency in log reporting and log checking is a good thing
     
    WU8Y likes this.
  9. W3WN

    W3WN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Violation of privacy laws is never a good thing.

    But there was no argument. Didn’t you notice that anyone who was not in favor of this “argument” suddenly stopped responding to the discussion, and in many cases suddenly disappeared from the reflector?

    That reflector, like this forum, is privately owned and privately run. Contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment and the right to have a free, open discussion on topics does not exist. If someone in a position of authority decides that they want a discussion to discontinue.. and/or some of those discussing it to be silenced...

    In any event, that was not the point. The point was that mandatory open logs was desired and enforced because of the allegations of cheating (to put it bluntly) by those jockeying for the top spots in WRTC, simply because the top guns did not trust each other. So because they could not or would not trust each other... guilty conscience, perchance?... they changed the rules.

    And even so, the cheating by a very small handful continues. Or so they keep alleging.
     
  10. NN3W

    NN3W Ham Member QRZ Page

    What privacy law is being violated? First your log is public because you are using open airwaves and transmitting in the clear. Worldwide SDRs capture basically any HF communications. Second, when you submit a log, you agree to abide by the terms set out by the contest sponsor - which includes giving permission for the sponsor to publish the logs for peer review.

    Not really. That discussion took place 11 years ago, and you're still there.

    Not sure how you're drawing a nexus between public logs and WRTC. The clamoring for pubic logs took off in 2008 and qualification for WRTC 2010 was well under way by then. The vast majority of contesters believe that the existence of open an public logs is a good thing. Big gun contesters and casual contesters alike.
     

Share This Page