I agree that this was an excellent piece of work by ES5TV.
RD3AF may be, as Tonno says, a well known packet cheater in Europe, but that
reputation had not previously made it to the USA. This is a good example of
why, as I suggested a few days back, the logs should be made public not long
after the log deadline. Subjecting the logs of those suspected of breaking
the rules to an analysis such as was done here, and presenting that analysis
the official log checkers, is a lot more likely to result in action against
the cheaters, particularly those who are not at the very top of the claimed
It is much easier for an adjudicator to DQ a log before the final results
are released than it is to do so afterward.
73 - Jim K8MR
In a message dated 12/11/2007 8:31:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Excellent analysis, Tonno !
Questions for the rest of you:
- Does anyone believe that RD3A was not cheating ? If so, please explain
- Does anyone still believe that packet cheaters cannot be caught ?
It is most disappointing that this kind of analysis is not being applied to
SOAB-claimed logs by the contest adjudicators. In the 2006 CQWW CW results,
know of one case where a high-scoring (top-20) USA competitor said he was
SOAB-Assisted in his 3830 writeup, but (accidentally) submitted his log as
SOAB-Unassisted. Surely this kind of analysis, done by the log-checkers,
have detected and questioned his error.
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
CQ-Contest mailing list