[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters

To: W7TMT <w7tmt@dayshaw.net>, Untitled <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters
From: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:38:29 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
My question to CQ is why beat around the bush?  Why not make the ubn report
public?  Why not detail the infractions and let the entire community in on
what a few seem to be in the loop about.

The station in question sure looks to have been watching packet spots.
Jumping from 40m to 160 seemed a bit odd to me and then 80 to 20 for double

I never even noticed the DQ until now and I do get CQ.  Participants should
not have to read between the lines.  Be clear and to the point about what is
going on.  What is the purpose of the camouflage.

Mike W0MU

On 12/9/07 6:46 PM, "W7TMT" <w7tmt@dayshaw.net> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters
> Forgive my naiveté but, being a relative newbie to contesting, I would like
> to know exactly what all this fuss is about.
> Snip...
> As I said, it is very confusing to read about rampant cheating yet the only
> evidence offered seemingly shows an error at best or stupidity at worst
> unless I've completely missed the boat (which is not beyond the realm of
> possibilities).
> Snip...
> _________________
> Recognizing that the CQ write-up doesn't go into the specifics regarding
> this specific DQ (however, there appears to have been only one reported in
> the results) one must give some consideration to the last paragraph of their
> DQ discussion where they wrote:
> "If you want try to be at the top in any category, follow the rules. Do not
> have another person help you if you are single operator. Do not use two
> signals at once. Make sure that all your TXs and RXs are within station
> limitations."
> Given how infrequently DQ's seem to occur one might draw some conclusion
> from their warning. It seems unlikely they would provide such specific
> warnings for things "not to do" unless they had some evidence that such
> behavior had occurred. That is just reading between the lines of course but
> it seems to me that they selected their words carefully and for a purpose.
> In other words, they didn't just pick those examples of unethical behavior
> out-of-a-hat so to speak.
> 73/Patrick
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

CQ-Contest mailing list

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