[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] How To Deal with Cheaters....

To: K1ZM@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] How To Deal with Cheaters....
From: Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine@earthlink.net>
Reply-to: Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:26:03 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Bravo, Jeff.  

My complaint is not about your actions, which I agree with, but with trying to 
figure out what would constitute "hard" evidence.  I would think that 
correlating the times and frequencies these stations were worked with the spots 
should be sufficient evidence, assuming there was a pattern.  In fact, other 
than checking the station's computer, what more could you obtain?  

Other than formal DQing someone, I would think the only other penalty would be 
if people were made aware who was doing such a transgression.  And, for that to 
happen, people shud be aware of who that station was.  I realize the libel laws 
are rather arcane and could come into play here but there must be some ground 
in between.  For example, several organizations will state that a formal 
complaint has been filed against someone and that their nomination, score, etc 
is under review.  After the review is completed a decision could be announced 
with the rationale for upholding or turning down the complaint.

Of course, with my vertical, I guess I don't need to worry about such matters.  
Now, if there was an "assisted" category in the 10 meter contest, I would not 
be competing against those real M/S guys. 


Dennis, K2SX

-----Original Message-----
>From: K1ZM@aol.com
>Sent: Dec 12, 2007 1:02 AM
>To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] How To Deal with Cheaters....
>Hello All
>I have been away and "reading the mail" and now have the time to comment  
>(sort of).
>I am not afraid to act on this one and did so in 2003.  I observed a  
>well-known (and TOP 10) USA contester chasing packet spots all Sunday 
>afternoon  long 
>during a CQWW SSB contest - to me there was NO OTHER WAY this station  would 
>have been able to "miraculously find" some first-time mults on 10M -  within 2 
>seconds of them having been spotted!  It happened on Saturday  afternoon as 
>well but Sunday's observations were quite pervasive.
>I did what any one SHOULD DO and wrote to three members of the CQWW contest  
>committee expressing my observations and some specific stations worked and the 
> times I heard the QSO's take place.
>It is a VERY LONG story, but some friends (who have been quite vocal on  this 
>topic on these pages this week) wrote to me and suggested perhaps I was  
>wrong to have reported the individual and that "I should have asked the  
>individual first etc etc".
>I elected NOT to do that because what I heard was a CLEAR-CUT PRIMA-FACIE  
>CASE OF BLATANT CHEATING - and because of that, there was NO WAY I could have  
>been mistaken - nor should I have given the station the "benefit of the doubt" 
>which I was also criticized for for NOT DOING.
>In this case, I think the committee had no hard proof and I know most of  the 
>CQWW members and their policy (as I understand it) is, in the absence of  
>hard evidence, their hands are tied - even if there are questions about the  
>specific operation.  This is a very fine line we are talking about  here folks 
>and I DO NOT BLAME THE COMMITTEE for being CAUTIOUS before just  DQ'ing people.
>In this specific case, no penalty was exacted - the station was not DQ'd -  
>although, I did later approach the station involved myself (I did NOT  
>initially) and I told him what I had heard - I did this, if for no other 
>reason,  to 
>let him know I KNEW WHAT HE DID - others were told on the committee - and if  
>nothing else, I hoped he would cease and desist going forward, knowing he was  
>now probably on the "CQWW Committee WATCH LIST."  I am pretty sure such a  
>defacto list exists - although these things do not usually ever get discussed  
>So what do we do here?
>1) Don't cheat!
>2) Play by the rules
>3) If you hear someone you think is cheating, please DO REPORT it to the  
>CQWW committee for investigation and a ruling - that's what they are there  
>4)You'll have to decide whether you want to confront the person you are  
>accusing - and if you do, you damned well better be sure - because YOU WILL 
>In my case, this station has not spoken two words to me in 4 years as a  
>result - but that is not important to me.
>I did what I had to do - to me there was NO OTHER OPTION - and I ask that  
>the rest of the contest community consult first your conscience - then "DO 
>Hope this helps.
>And no, I am not interested in flames.
>I have said my last on this topic.
>(And please do not write to me privately to ask who it was - the individual  
>involved already knows who it was and I do hope he has changed his  ways!  
>Naming names at this point serves no useful purpose.)
>73 JEFF
>**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
>CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list

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