More than just DX News

Unprofessional refereeing

My motivaton for writing this article was my (RG3K, op. UA3QDX) disqualification in CQWW CW-2008 and so-called "private" disqualification(?) in RDXC-2009.

I should say that this article in any case is neither an excuse nor a blame but just some kind of an analysis of present tendencies in modern contesting.

During many years I have been working hardly on improving my SO2R operating skills (SO2R - 2 _Radio_, not 2 _Radio_man_, as many like to think).

First contests I used SO2R were the CQWW and RDXC contests, operation took place from RK3QWW/RK3K position.

I had some issues during those contests like gear malfunction and antenna failure resulting logs errors (according to the contest committee), as one can not solve gear/antenna issues and keep running with high rates at the same time.

Post-contest log processing was made just to diagnose the reception and typing errors.

Audio recording was not made on two reasons:
1. there is no strict requirement in the rules
2. possible issues with audio recording.
Those issues might lead to operators distraction and the waste of the time if something goes wrong.

Claimed CQWW-CW SOAB UNASSISTED category means that I used neither cluster nor any other networks.

Unlike of CQWW in RDXC I used cluster, though I did not gain anything as the rates were high both on CQ and S&P along the whole length of the contest.

Let's go to refereeing.

As UU7A/4L0A team has already written about numerous "well-wishers" and anonimous letters sent to CQWW contest Committee, those wishers are worth another topic and discussion.

The situation with CQWW committee decisions on DQing and moving various applicants to another categories without distinct reasons is still not very clean. The disqualification applies to some well-known conesters.

Then what middle-range and casual contesters should think? What is this? Is that upcoming WRTC and willing of some to get the rivals out of the way? Being honest, it looks like an action on demand.

In a private talk with Vlad Aksenov RW1AC - a member of RDXC Contest Committee - I figured sound desire of RDXC CC to keep everything upside down. That is - everyone is being offered by the judges an option to prove one's innocence. Not the other way around.

The log-checking process is being made with some "virtual" programs and does not look fair as one can not set new records because the possibility of new records itself has not been laid into the program.

Nonsense! The theory of log-checking process, used by so-called "A group for Fair Contesting" (BTW, who are they?), is proofless and doubtful. Speaking
plain, they just say "We looked at the logs, they look too good, so it is impossible". Another double standard - their approach to some rules violation like power, antenna fields exceeding 500 m in diameter or remote operation via Internet looks obvious.

All of the above make one think not only some contesters but also the CQWW and RDXC contest committees are bifacial. Gentlemen, I think it will not lead to anything good and it definitely will not increase the participation in the major contests.

Before implying any penalties or disqualifying anyone the strict rules determining the procedure of audio/video records providing and presence of the CQWW CC representative are to be set.

As long as it is not being done currently, the unproved disqualifications are nothing than willfulness.

Igor UA3QDX / RG3K

The logs of participants are being checked by some phantom-virtual software which has no legitimate approach. In reality from now on one simply can’t set any kind of a record since the log checking software won’t let through a record breaking score. Nonsense!


Rating: 5 of 5
  • Callsign: LY2KZ
  • 2009-09-25 03:33:03
As far as I understand, every suspicious log found by program is carefully examined by humans (contest committee) before it is claimed to be disqualified. No need to blame software. Did you mean as long as *THIS*computer log checking is used there will be no world/continental records set? Even at this low sunspot number. 73
Rating: 5 of 5
  • Callsign: 4L5A
  • 2009-09-23 00:27:54

We translate UA3QDX article and I hope its looks better now

 73            Al 4L5A

Rating: 5 of 5
  • Callsign: LZ2CJ
  • 2009-09-22 03:36:52
If you want to make your point clear, find someone to translate this article in English for you.

Leave a comment

1 2 3 4 5