[WRTC2006] WRTC2010- Even more questions

Wed Aug 1 15:50:11 BRT 2007

Hi Harry,

thanks for taking into consideration my comments. I find your answers 
quite helpful.

To avoid some further confusion and misunderstanding, I would suggest to 
include the definitions of the most important terms (HOME AREA, DX QTH, 
PERMANENT RESIDENT, etc) at the end of the document. These definitions 
don't need to sound really official and dry, they just need to rely the 
intent.

So, if I got  it correct , the definition for "permanent resident" would 
be something like that:

A "permanent resident" of a given country for WRTC-2010 qualification 
purposes is everyone who:
1. is a citizen of this country
OR
2. satisfies all of the following requirements:
- physically present in this country for more than  6 months in a 
calendar year;
- holds a valid Amateur Radio license issued by the authorities in this 
country;
- possesses a valid government issued identification document (driving 
license, identity card, passport, etc. )

Your English doesn't seem to be limited at all but if there is a need of 
that, I would be glad to offer my help. I'm fluent in Russian and 
somewhat fluent in English. And I'm not the only one on this reflector :)

About cheating: I'm glad to hear that my information about RDXC was 
wrong. Now we know that at least 2 contests (CQWW and RDXC) are checked 
thoroughly. Judging by log submission requirements of EUHF championship 
there might be even 3. For others: I really have no idea what exactly 
has to happen, so that some contest sponsors would open their eyes. 
Anyway, following your advice I will contact KC1J and K1ZZ. I doubt they 
would re-score IARU-2006 but if there are more people pushing, the "HA 
phenomenon" might disappear in the results of IARU-2007.

Thanks again and keep up the good work !

73, Alex LZ4AX

Igor Booklan SRR wrote:
> Hi Alex!
>
> Thanks a lot for putting up that many questions.
>
> I will try to answer those I can.
>
> AA> Dear Roman and Harry,
>
> AA> during the last couple of days I was following the discussion with a 
> AA> great interest. Some of Harry's responses already answered the questions
> AA> I was about to ask. Some others, however, made me wonder if I really do
> AA> understand the rules. So, here they are:
>
> AA> I.
> AA> First, are these rules final ? Meaning, are they already "set in stone"
> AA> and they can not be subjected to discussion at all ? If they are not, 
> AA> then could you announce a deadline after which the rules can not be 
> AA> changed anymore and we can start preparing our strategies for the 
> AA> remaining contests ?
>
> As you may understand the rules cannot be just done overnight, so we
> spent several months discussing them over.
>
> There will be some minor changes with the version we published but no
> major ones. The deadline - I don't know ... I hope very soon.
>
> AA> II.
> AA> I would like just to add a small comment on "Category factor": don't you
> AA> think it is too big for M/S ? In terms of personal contribution to the
> AA> team's score there is no big difference between a 10 people team in M/S
> AA> and the same team in M/2. And at the same time SOA are practically 
> AA> beheaded with 0.7. At least they have the guts to declare they are using
> AA> the cluster.
>
> Since the 3rd letter of WRTC is T (team) we want to say again that
> this is absolutely Team Championship. There is big number of teams
> (especially M/S, we want to support by high Category factor). It is
> very difficult to get together good M/S team with ops feeling each
> other.
>
> The rules of WRTC-2010 contest themselves support a real team
> operators. A very very good Team Leader will do nothing without
> feeling shoulder of his Team Mate. This is a Team work which is
> learned in M/S operations.
>
> M2 is also a team job. Less attractive than M/S but the team is
> involved anyway.
>
> SO Assisted is another story. Just guess the reasons.
>
> AA> III. The calculation formula: I really like it ! It does take into 
> AA> account if you were really close to the winner or you got smashed but 
> AA> you still get a lot of points just because you were #2. However, this 
> AA> formula has an obvious flaw ! It always requires at least one decent 
> AA> score. Since an example is worth a thousand words, let me show you just
> AA> one and you make your own conclusions out of it.
> AA> In RDXC 2006 the winner in M2 category in NA is K3DI. The guys there had
> AA> fun and finished with 147 719 points.
> AA> If RDXC 2006 would count for the WRTC selection procedure, they would 
> AA> get 910x0.7 = 637 qualification points.
> AA> NO2R won the M/S in NA with 920 465 points, 6-7 times bigger score. 
> AA> AA3B, who finished second in SOABCW with 1 119 150 points, 8 times 
> AA> bigger score than K3DI, would get 910 x 0.8 x (1 119 150/1 261 260) = 
> AA> 646 points. In other words, AA3B would get almost the same number as a
> AA> station over which he won with 8 times larger score ! This obviously is
> AA> not right.
> AA> Some people would say that cases like this are so rare, so it is not 
> AA> worth looking into it. Well, that's not true. There are a lot of hidden
> AA> categories in all of the areas defined in the Rules and this is not an
> AA> isolated case and RDXC 2006 was just the first one I looked into.  If 
> AA> you decide to keep it the way it is, the number of people changing their
> AA> categories depending on what they saw at 3830, would go up exponentially.
>
> AA> Now, I know that we all strive for purely objective criteria. 
> AA> Unfortunately, in most of the cases this can not be fully achieved. In
> AA> my opinion, it would be much better if you, as organizers, retain the 
> AA> right to change the denominator in the above formula in OBVIOUS cases to
> AA> "the best score in all categories from that area" or "the best score in
> AA> first lower category from that area" or whatever it may be appropriate.
>
> Alex, this is a very good point.
>
> Your suggestion to compare applicant score with best score in first
> lower (may be even next lower) category from your area in cases of
> very low participation is under discussion now. Thanks a lot !!
>
> AA> Speaking of the formula, I find its wording quite misleading. Initially
> AA> I thought that my score (when I operate K3CR) will be normalized to the
> AA> best score in NA area #1 and NOT to the best score in the area I will be
> AA> applying from - EU #4, i.e. in the same way it was for WRTC-2006. After
> AA> reading one of Harry's responses though, I honestly don't know what to
> AA> think. The formula says "nominee area". Which is my "nominee area" ? The
> AA> area I operated from, right ?
>
> If you operate from W3 your HOME area is NA #1 (W1,2,3,4).
> Other areas are DX.
>
> If you operate from LZ your home area is EU-4.
> Other areas are DX.
>
> AA> Harry, you mentioned something about your countrymen getting upset with
> AA> the big scores you achieve from 5B4. Why they would get upset if they 
> AA> get the same qualification points as you get ? If you win Asia, you 
> AA> would get exactly the same number of points as your neighbor in Moscow
> AA> who wins EU #5 and if you don't win Asia you would get  even less 
> AA> qualification points than him, right ? Why he would get upset about that
> AA> ? Is there something that I have misunderstood ?
>
> I think I didn't get something myself. Forget it.
>
> AA> IV. The most controversial topic - rule 5.5
> AA> I must admit, I agree with most of the negative comments regarding this
> AA> rule. And not only because it directly impacts me. I will not repeat all
> AA> of the arguments mentioned before by well known contesters. I will just
> AA> say that I have utmost respect for those people who have built and 
> AA> maintain stations at remote DX locations. Yes, it is easier to win the
> AA> world from there than from your comfortable home but their scores are 
> AA> compared to the scores of others like them, at not to yours directly. 
> AA> And I personally have no problem with YT1AD going to 3V8BB 8 times and
> AA> then comparing his points with mine.
> AA> W2SC proposed a "roaming" category and I would go even further. Retain
> AA> the areas for comparing scores but don't limit the number of spots per
> AA> each area. Europe will still get 21 teams but all of them might come 
> AA> from one or two areas.  The same in US, don't limit West coast to just 2
> AA> - make all of the spots available to any area in US. This would create a
> AA> fierce competition but this is exactly what we need to select the best
> AA> of the best, right ?
>
> -skip-
>
> AA> Anyway, until now no one mentioned anything about the other DX category
> AA> - people living permanently in other countries. Since 2001, a little bit
> AA> more than 6 years, I live permanently in US. According to rule 5.5, W3
> AA> is my DX QTH. Not a very clever choice on my side, I must admit. Going
> AA> back to LZ 4 times in the next 15 months definitely represents a problem
> AA> but with the right planning it could be done. In less than a year, 
> AA> however, I will finish my doctorate and I will have to choose where to
> AA> go next. The list of my choices includes ZL and KL7. Traveling half of
> AA> the world to get to LZ doesn't sound too logical though. I really don't
> AA> see the reason why someone who has established his life and career in 
> AA> another country but still retains and respects his original citizenship
> AA> has to travel half of the world 4 times in one year. In today's global
> AA> world the number of people living permanently abroad is astonishing. 
> AA> Europe practically has no borders anymore and it completely doesn't 
> AA> matter where you live. Anyway, enough about that.
>
> AA> V.
> AA> Rules 5.1 and 6 use "permanent residence" term. It useful to know that
> AA> not all of the countries have the statute of "permanent residence". In
> AA> fact, after talking to our Foreign Affairs office, it turned out that 
> AA> MOST of the countries in the world don't have such a statute. In LZ it
> AA> is enough to live there for 181 days in a calendar year and pay your 
> AA> taxes there and you are considered to be a "permanent resident". Note,
> AA> only considered. You are not given any document as such a statute simply
> AA> doesn't exist. In European Union, the treaties between member countries
> AA> guarantee privileges equal to these of  "permanent resident" to all of
> AA> member countries citizens. So, would you please consider some re-wording
> AA> of these rules, so that their meaning AND intent becomes more clear and
> AA> not allowing different interpretations ?
>
> Thanks for pointing it as well.
>
> By saying permanent residence we would like to link: a call sign - a
> passport (a driver license) - a residential address.
>
> I am sorry, bu since my English is a bit limited can you reword it
> correct way, please.
>
> AA> VI. CHEATING
> AA> Roman and Harry, as I will be applying from an area, famous with its 
> AA> shameless cheating, I would like to ask you to elaborate a little bit on
> AA> your cheaters policy. As far as the rumours go, in WRTC-2006 selection
> AA> process, people who were caught cheating, were asked not to submit their
> AA> applications. I don't know if that's true but it sounded logical to me.
> AA> Do you intend to implement such a policy too ? If so, when the "clean"
> AA> period starts - 2006, 2007 ?
>
> Yes, we are planning to do that starting the first contest listed.
>
> AA> Also, are you going to rely completely on contests organizers for 
> AA> cheating checking or you will have your own checking too ?
> AA> What are you going to do with contests that do not implement such a 
> AA> check ? RDXC and IARU are the first two that come to my mind.
>
> We trust contest sponsors. If you fell they don't do this job good
> enough, a whole contest community must push contest sponsors for such
> a check !!
>
> FYI, RDXC is checking this very closeley. Last year we, RDXC, moved 9
> or even 10 stations to different categories.
>
> We, RDXC & SRR, are still offering IARU contest our support in finding
> cheaters but it has nothing to do with WRTC-2010. If contest is there
> it is there!
>
> AA> Don't know about CQ WPX but judging from 3830 some people really
> AA> believe that it doesn't have any either. For IARU there was a long
> AA> going thread on CQ-Contest only a month ago. As you already have
> AA> included IARU-2006, how do you intend to handle the "HA
> AA> phenomenon" in IARU-2006 ? 
>
> What I suggest is you guys in US push your ARRL directors to re-judge
> IARU contest 2006 results since ARRL is resposible for this. I know it
> is difficult and very uncomfortable to do such actions but if you wish
> to clean contesting ideas and make IARU contest, which I perosnally
> love, clean you have to do this !!!
>
> AA> Roman and Harry, I know I asked too many questions but I trully believe
> AA> that it is of everyone's interest to make the things absolutely clear. I
> AA> realize that answering all sorts of questions people were asking and 
> AA> will keep asking is an extremely difficult and exhausting task . I can
> AA> only commend you on the great job you've done so far and offer my help
> AA> if it's needed.
>
> AA> 73, Alex LZ4AX
>
> Thanks Alex! Many clever ideas. I wish I have 30 hours a day to answer
> you guys.
>
> 73s, Harry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WRTC2006 mailing list
> WRTC2006 at wrtc2006.com
> http://list.wrtc2006.com/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2006
>
>
>   