Solving the contest credibility problem

Discussion in 'Straight Keys - CW Enthusiasts' started by VK5EEE, Mar 27, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Subscribe
  1. VK5EEE

    VK5EEE Ham Member QRZ Page

    In order to preserve any connection between honesty, sport and amateur radio contesting, we should make a correction to the very poor practice of requiring a fake "5NN" which serves no purpose: it is dishonest, which is against the very principle of fair competition, and severely disadvantages those who give an honest report, slowing them and their logging down.

    So it should be done away with, into the dustbin of history, and replaced by a 2 or 3 letter contest desginator that every participant must send in front of the serial number or whatever data is required.

    This also solves the problem of the confusion which reigns, and the many false invalid contacts which are claimed in scores, because it will immediately become obvious if two different contests exchange numbers, and thus would not be in the contest log for the relevant contest. In this way, we have solved a major problem for the contesters who did not think of this obvious solution, we have given it to them, as our contribution toward contesting and keeping contests alive and relevent to future generations without dishonest basis.

    Motion hereby put forward to the wise men and/or psychopaths who occupy contest organising committees.
     
  2. W5BIB

    W5BIB Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I kinda like the idea of replacing the 5NN report with a serial number (contact number) being sent by the DX entity & the other station repeating it back. Perhaps starting with 0001.

    Steve / W5BIB
     
  3. VK5EEE

    VK5EEE Ham Member QRZ Page

    73 Steve! There is already a serial number in most contests, so a typical format is 5NN 001, then 5NN 002 etc. There are contests that pass on the last received "serial" actually e.g. formerly post code in RoPoCo (rotating post code) which now is RoLo (rotating locator), is that how you mean? But it would be confusing to have 2 serial numbers. I'm suggesting that e.g. the WWPX contest would use the WW designator, the ARRL Sweepstakes the ARS or AS designator, etc. So the report would become instead of 5NN 001 it would be WW 001, then WW 002... in this manner the 5NN is done away with, contesters don't look like idiots to the non-contesters, and amateur radio contests don't look like dishonest events to non-ham observers who may be prospective hams :) no point having 5NN when it is not a report, and when some instead DO insert a report e.g. 55N, 57N and thus are handicaped. EITHER the contest rules should stipulate that those who do NOT correctly record received reports, reports that do NOT match the other log, and/or ALL reports in the submitted log are 5NN are disqualified, OR, they demand accurate reports be given, OR they do away with 5NN and replace it with a "contest identifier" so that all stations have the same amount to send and nothing to adjust in the log?
     
  4. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    This dead horse has already been beaten ad nauseum.
    Rhetorically, why should anyone care if fake subjective RSTs are sent???
    Moreover, who does it hurt that a fake subjective RST is sent???
     
    KC3BZJ, AA8TA and WB0MPB like this.
  5. VK5EEE

    VK5EEE Ham Member QRZ Page

    Really? I'd be interested to discuss it with those interested parties, can you refer me to any current thread(s) about this?
    fake is fake, and 599 is not subjective, S9 means EXTREMELY STRONG SIGNAL.
    why: i stated why in the post above: it makes us look dishonest, it is like doping in sport, dishonesty in sport, cheating in sport. contests are meant to be SPORT. Sport is meant to be HONEST.
    Moreover, it makes us ALL look stupid (and not just you), why send something that is simply not required, plus, as it appears you didn't read the original post, it is doping because: those who DO give an honest report are handicapped in doing so.
    Who is hurt: Those among us who are HONEST and simply REFUSE to give 5NN and don't wish to look stupid when trying to copy a signal from out under the noise and asking for repeats are not like those who don't care what people think of them when they give 5NN and then ask for a dozen repeats, why should we be handicapped?
    therefore we put the above solution forward to make contests easier and better and fairer, and please refer me to any where on the Internet that this proposal has been put forward -- otherwise you are not telling the truth about dead horses?
     
  6. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Someone needs to calm down...
     
    KD4MOJ, AA8TA, WB0MPB and 1 other person like this.
  7. AF7TS

    AF7TS Ham Member QRZ Page

    On the one hand, it seems that many (most) people in contests are perfectly content sending 'fake' 5NN 'signal reports' as part of the requirements to make a contact for purposes of the contest. It becomes obvious to most everyone that this is not a real signal report, is understood to be a fiction.

    On the other hand, VK5EEE does not need to convince lots of amateurs to change from fake 5NN reports to something else. All that needs to happen is to convince the contest organizers that they should use something else. Different contests already have different exchange requirements; why not replace 5NN with a different set of three letters.

    73
    Jon
    AF7TS
     
    VK5EEE likes this.
  8. VK5EEE

    VK5EEE Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm very calm PRC, I merely thought you liked lots of bold and underlined lettering, and also observed you asked questions of a post that had already asked those questions, so I thought perhaps your eyesight was a little poor, hence, the emphasis and larger letter. I wasn't shouting!
     
  9. VK5EEE

    VK5EEE Ham Member QRZ Page

    I completely agree too with all you have said. Most people I do believe are happy doing so, otherwise they would have suggested otherwise. It's the minority that are less happy with it, and perhaps a majority among those who don't participate in contests, perhaps as they would like to at least have some indication and comparison between antennas and propagation etc. It does only need convincing contest organisers, indeed, but I post these ideas and proposals on this forum so that it can be seen whether the proposals are faulty or make sense, are acceptable to contesters or not... then hopefully contesters themselves will put forward these proposals, rather than someone who does the thinking for the contesters and wishes to assist them, but doesn't take part in many contests himself? I'm not trying to convince everyone here, but put these ideas to the test, along with other issues and proposed solutions in other recent posts. These issues and ideas are the result of my observations returning to the bands after over 20 years, and noticing big changes, none of which are positive. I don't see anything better than 20 years ago, on the CW bands, it is far worse in every respect. I haven't seen these proposals being put forward anywhere else, but that doesn't mean they haven't -- though WA7PRC said "This dead horse has already been beaten ad nauseum" and I've asked where and when, I've not seen in the CW forums I'm aware of any discussion of these issues, so I thought I'd start some threads to assist in confirming or modifying my own conclusions while at the same time maybe some contest committee members can read and comment. Thanks OM, 73 Lou VK5EEE
     
  10. AF7TS

    AF7TS Ham Member QRZ Page

    An approach which might be more palatable to contest organizers is to ask that the status quo be recognized in the rules.

    Where the rules currently require an exchange that includes a signal report, and that signal report is 'understood by the community' to be fake, request that the rules explicitly require a 'placeholder 5NN in lieu of a signal report'.

    By making the 'fake' 5NN explicit, it would then allow _some_ contests to move to in other directions, and see what works best for the community. Perhaps some contests would move to the 'arbitrary contest 3 characters', others would move to a 'true and accurate signal report' to increase difficulty, others might try 'use 5NN if you wish, but a true and accurate signal report gives a scoring bonus', etc.

    It would also allow anyone who is 'bugged by the lies' to open up the rule book and be comforted :)

    You have identified a 'problem' which bugs a portion of the amateur population (how large, no data), and which doesn't bother a large portion of the contesting community. Any sort of solution which looks like it is being forced on that happy portion of the population will be rejected.

    73
    Jon
    AF7TS
     
    WA7PRC, W5BIB and VK5EEE like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: portazero-1