[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet

To: KI9A@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
From: Jim George <n3bb@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:09:00 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Here we go again. This is getting tiresome!

SO2R is *one* operator doing all the logging and all the listening and all 
the whatever. The operator has two or three or four receivers to listen on 
simultaneously, but only one signal transmitted at a time. That one 
operator must do all the listening and band combing and whatever him/herself.

Packet assistance allows one to get all the accumulated listening from a 
large number of the operators around the world, and have a list of spots to 
seek out with "point and shoot" techniques. Some of the stations made 
public by packet would be virtually impossible for any single operator ever 
to locate alone. It is a huge advantage. A highly talented operator, 
equally skilled across the board, should be able to make a higher score 
using packet than not using packet-all other things being equal.

While I understand differences of opinion, it remains hard to me to see how 
one can argue that the use of more than one radio by a single operator is 
equivalent to utilizing the overall contributions of all a great many 
operators. You apparently feel that way, but it is completely alien to my 

I think your argument really is based on the position that people will 
cheat, and we cannot police or prevent it, so we should give up, and widen 
the categories so that everyone is considered the lowest common 
denominator-namely with assistance from others no matter what their 
category. Put all single-op categories in with all assisted single-ops. 
Make it a large group. Don't trust anyone. Assume everyone uses packet no 
matter what they claim under oath. Argue that this approach increases 
activity. Whatever! The WAE has taken that position. At least this position 
*is* logical, albeit controversial.

To extend that position, I would think you would argue the same for power 
levels. Why in the world would we assume that people actually are LP or 
QRP. To extend this further, why assume people are legal with high power to 
the contest rules? So your argument would be to eliminate all power levels 
and all single-op differences. There would be one amalgamated category: 
"Hopefully Single-OP." Heck, how do we know they didn't have additional 
operators but kept it secret.? So let's combine all categories and have one 
category: "Operator(s)."

To me, SO2R is a high level of individual contesting skill gained with 
great commitment and personal sacrifice. It's not for everyone. That 
capability should be recognized and rewarded, not marginalized and 
thwarted, as you would argue.

Jim George N3BB

  At 05:11 PM 12/11/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>This is why we need to end the assisted category, and open all classes 
>(to) using packet. If SO2R is ok for a single op, why not packet?
>In a message dated 12/11/2007 6:25:40 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>steve.root@culligan4water.com writes:
>Exactly!  How would you prove you WEREN'T using packet? If we knew what the
>log checkers  were looking for then we could avoid that behavior, but then 
>cheaters  would know too. The whole deal kind of scares me. Potentially you
>could lose a  whole weekend, a top score, and your reputation all in one 
>73  Steve K0SR
>**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
>CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list

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