I really wish people would pay closer attention to the second part of my
message, where I proposed monitoring of entire bands during contests, using
cheap, currently available technology. But since we're focused on the idea
of requiring top contenders to record their contest efforts, I don't get
the idea that this represents a presumption of dishonesty, any more than
the presence of radar in cop cars presumes that I'm going to
speed. Instead, their presence helps deter speeders, or catches them
before they kill someone. I'm safer as a result, and I don't take offense.
Recorded contests might even improve the fairness of the log-checking
process. Take the 2007 CW sweepstakes as an example, where only a few QSOs
separate the top contenders. Wouldn't it be a good thing if the judges
could listen to every busted QSO and determine whether the fault lay with
the bust-er or the bust-ee? If someone sends me a check of 44, which I log
correctly, and he sends everyone else a check of 34, should I be
penalized? Recordings are the only way to check that.
73, Pete N4ZR
At 01:00 AM 12/15/2007, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>You say there's "no reason not to require serious contesters" to record?
>NO. This crosses a line. This goes too far. This is not a matter of
>technology, it's a matter of trust.
>To try and catch a minority of cheaters, you presume us all to be dishonest
>unless we prove otherwise?
>I don't care if someone gives me the recording system. It tells me that I
>am presumed dishonest. It tells me I am presumed guilty until proven
>innocent. I take afront at such an assertion.
>And to think that I got a private email from someone on this list telling me
>"oh c'mon, you know they're just kidding."
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:08:12 -0500
>From: Pete Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Recording your CQ WW CW contest
>You can buy a 2GB USB flash drive for $15, and Sagebrush Software sells
>very useful recording software that will timestamp your audio files for
>under $30. No doubt, there is freeware out there too. A stereo MP3
>recording of an entire 48-hour contest will go on a CD.
>There's simply no reason not to require serious contenders for the top ten
>boxes to record their efforts. Some might even buy several flash drives,
>just in case.
>It is also becoming pretty cost-effective to record the bottom 70-80 KHz of
>a contest band, for an entire 48-hour contest. The receivers are dirt
>cheap (see SoftRock), the software is free (see Rocky), and a 160 GB hard
>drive (enough to record an entire 48-hour contest) is around $70. There's
>no reason not to set up a network of monitoring stations (1 or 2 per
>continent per band) run by disinterested volunteers. Not knowing whether
>you would be caught would be a powerful deterrent, IMO, particularly if the
>punishment were stiff and public.
>73, Pete N4ZR
>At 09:39 AM 12/14/2007, George Fremin III wrote:
> >I think recording contests can be useful. It is fairly easy
> >to do - I have been doing it for years. I almost never go
> >back and listen to much or any of the recordings of my
> >contests. I already heard it all once.
> >Recordings can be useful.
> >- It is fun and educational to listen to someone else do the contest.
> >- It is fun to go back and hear some fast hour or some really neat contact.
> >- It is cool to listen to some recording that was made years ago:
> > http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr/audio/n6aa/w6dgh-1973-ssb-ss-1st-hour.mp3
> > http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr/audio/n6aa/
> >- Having a recording was very useful to me one time when
> > jamming occurred on the air.
> >And I have nothing to hide in my operating - I am more than happy
> >to share any recordings, logs and LCR/UBN reports with anyone.
> >George Fremin III - K5TR
> >CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list