[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] RES: Calling The Kettle Black

To: <eric@k3na.org>, "Eric Rosenberg" <wd3q@starpower.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] RES: Calling The Kettle Black
From: "py5eg" <py5eg@iesa.com.br>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:48:28 -0200
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hi Eric:
I really like your idea.
Lets talk with the sponsors.

Atilano de Oms

-----Mensagem original-----
De: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]Em nome de Eric Scace K3NA
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 12 de dezembro de 2007 11:47
Para: Eric Rosenberg
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Assunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] Calling The Kettle Black

   In a past contest years ago, I sent information about a rules 
violation to the contest sponsor.  Nothing was heard back, and as far as 
I knew nothing was done about it.  That doesn't encourage 
self-enforcement of the rules by "reporting apparent cheaters".

   We are dealing with individuals' public reputations.  I certainly am 
reluctant to stand up in public and say "Mr X is a cheater!"  My 
"evidence" could be mistaken.  And, importantly, Mr X has no way to 
clear himself if he is innocent of the charges, or the evidence isn't 
solid enough.

   Folks may be more likely to send in a report of apparent rules 
violation to a group (need not be the contest sponsor) that operates 
according to a well-understood procedure for investigating complaints.  
The individuals making up that investigation may well be different for 
each complaint (or group of complaints) -- but should be unrelated to 
the source of the complaints, the operator who has been accused, and 
perhaps even the contest sponsor.  The procedure to investigate 
complaints should be standardized, known to the contest public, 
uniformly applied, and include safeguards against abuse.  The accused 
must have a way to present evidence contradicting the complaint.  There 
should be a time limit to the investigation, so that complaints don't 
just linger.  The result should be a comprehensive summary of the facts 
(not opinions) available to any interested member of the public, and the 
accused's rebuttal (if any) included.  Before publication, an 
independent check by a few persons not part of that investigating panel 
should verify the investigation and draft report complied with the 
procedures set out for investigating and reporting on complaints.

   When a comprehensive set of facts are available, interested people 
can draw their own conclusions.  And contest sponsor(s) can make their 
own decision about how to treat the log submission of the accused 
operator now or in the future.

on 07 Dec 11 Tue 22:58 Eric Rosenberg said the following:
> [...snip...]
> Why is it that only ES5TV is willing to name names and post the evidence?  
> And why is it that apparently none of those expressing concern with what one 
> might assume is rampant cheating, protested 
> to the contest sponsors?  That's one path of action that hasn't been 
> mentioned in this most recent discussion of the subject. 
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] RES: Calling The Kettle Black, py5eg <=