A lot of the discussion here is missing the point.
It's actually pretty easy these days, as a contest adjudicator, to see if
anyone is using packet.
Here's an example (and I'm currently completing adjudication of the IOTA
contest, so I have live examples of this):
XY8ABA sends in a contest log. So I can check the QSOs. At one point, as I
check other logs, I see his call gets busted several times as XY8BAB. I
check the cluster spots for the contest (all archived) and see that at that
time he had been mis-spotted as XY8BAB. So, immediately, all those who broke
his call are under suspicion. Those who entered as Assisted or Multi-op are
excused. The others go on my list for further observation. If it happens a
few times in the contest, then it's pretty much a fair cop.
The question that should be asked, is WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
In my case, I write to the entrants concerned (generally they will have
submitted electronically, so will have an e-mail address). Further action
depends very much upon their response. Some may have genuinely failed to
register their log as Assisted. Their entry is modified accordingly. For
those who don't respond, my action would generally be to reclassify them
automatically. Only if the same thing happens another year would I consider
DQ. But this is where the real philosophical question lies, and I would be
most interested in reactions from reflectorites! Innocent until proven
guilty (a genuine mistake in their entry) or guilty until proven innocent?
73 Don G3XTT
IOTA Contest Manager
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|