[Top] [All Lists]


To: CQ-Contest Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CONTEST CRIMINALS
From: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:22:59 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Eric Hilding wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, David Robbins K1TTT wrote:
>> You are correct, and the contest sponsors who are interested  
>> either have
>> their own source for the same data or have been regularly asking  
>> me for the
>> raw data.  And if you dig deep enough and compare between the 3830  
>> claimed
>> scores and what finally shows up in the final results there are  
>> some missing
>> scores and some in different categories.  I only wish that the  
>> sponsors
>> would publish the specifics of all the cases, though I guess that  
>> some of
>> them were logs that just didn't get submitted or were voluntarily  
>> withdrawn.
> What a sad situation for such a wonderful hobby, because forgery is  
> criminal behavior, regardless of where it occurs.
> Over the years, I've had numerous discussions with the FBI  
> regarding HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of forgeries of several of my high- 
> profile domain names, which is why I have ZERO TOLERANCE for this  
> kind of crap within the Contesting arena of the amateur radio "hobby".

        Hi Rick,

        Which is the criminal statute that "self spotting" falls under? Is  
it a misdemeanor or is it a felony?  A forged log?

        I'm being a little facetious here, because you probably want to  
separate the breaking of rules in Amateur radio contesting, and bona- 
fide criminal activity. It will help to keep a perspective.

> I believe you are providing a valuable service by bringing examples  
> of this unfortunate situation to everyone's attention, because it  
> needs to be dealt with.

        I believe that it needs to be dealt with, but there are a lot better  
ways than outing a person on the list:

1. submit proof to the contest sponsor

2. Work with the sponsor to come to a successful conclusion.


>   It is refreshing to know that some sponsors have not buried their  
> heads in the sand, and I encourage those sponsors following this  
> thread who have been sitting on the fence to

        Aa a sponsor, I can say that anyone who is caught cheating will be  
DQ'ed, and depending on the infraction, will either be scrutinized  
heavily in the future or simply banned from submitting a log  the  
contest. Note that you can't ban a person from working in the  
contest, just submitting a log. We have banned people already.

        But let us make no mistake about it, there is a lot more that gets  
"discussed" on the list than ever makes it to the sponsor.

        I have a rule regarding official contest discussions. If a person  
wants to communicate something official - as cheating allegations  
should be - they need to communicate with *me*. A contesting SIG is  
not official, and isn't run in a manner that I would consider official 
(as far as rules violations). Anything that I don't get as private  
mail is a rumor. No one should be "outed" except in private email to  
me. Proof is critically important. In a lot of cases, the allegation  
is made by a ham who simply doesn't like another ham. No proof.  No  
proof equals no DQ.

        Another time I got email from a Ham in which he described rampant  
cheating, (no specifics), and refused to name the perp. What do I do  
with that? But I'll bet he sits around with his buds and tells them  
how he told me all kinds of stuff, and I didn't do a darn thing about  
it! 8^)

> show some intestinal fortitude and leadership for a change.

        I think we are on the same side here Rick, but do you really think  
that contest organizers are as you describe?

        If they are, then isn't it about time that some of the honest people  
with fortitude and leadership should start to volunteer to run the  
contests? 8^)

        -73 de Mike KB3EIA -


CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>