On Dec 14, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Jim Neiger wrote:
> Holiday Greetings.
> Since I "lobbed the hand grenade" over the wall, to quote my Uncle,
> its been truly interesting and remarkable to read the many
> comments, ideas,
> criticisms, and the personal 'thank you's' from the 99% who thought
> it a
> good idea, more or less. For those who commented about the other
> 1%, not
> to worry, once a jerk, always a jerk. A real plus has been the so
> comments, from world-wide who never regularly post here.
> Santa, I'd like to herein make my Christmas Wish List:
So Jim, let's say you get everything you want.
It won't stop cheating. I'd go on record as saying that cheating
will increase. More rules, more opportunities.
What do you propose as new anti-cheating rules after that? I can see
that you have the beginnings of the new set of demands in asking
Santa to speak with those who run over legal power.
How about each station having to purchase and use a recording device
that records time on/time off, band changes, output power, and any
other possible cheat mechanism on a NIST certified and sealed "black
box" attached to all needed points at a station.?
Tongue in cheek of course
But seriously, when you want to:
> (5) Please consider the notion of everyone wishing to be judged as
> a Serious
> competitor, at least audio-tape the contest, and have it available,
> the judges request it be mailed in. Cost of a recorder: less than
You are setting up a two tier system of "serious" and "not serious"
So if I somehow do well, but I didn't think I was a "serious" (could
you define that anyhow?) do I get DQ'ed if I didn't record myself?"
And if I get DQ'ed:
> (4) Santa, please install a painful penalty for being DQed. A
> to-be-determined period in which the culprit cannot participate.
> Put this
> penalty into effect immediately, retro-active to this 2007 CQ
> WW. . Give
> each transgresser a 30 day grace period in which to now change the
> of the pap they've already submitted, with no penalty. I think
> this penalty
> will go a long way to discourage cheating.
So here I am, the improving "non serious" contester who just gets
penalized, and you apparently want me to suffer painfully. I'm just
going to participate in the contest next year, eh?
Although you are looking at the situation narrowly (changing
category), your painful penalties would span the DQ universe.
Your vision of future contesting is quite chilling, Jim. Is a guilty
until proven innocent system, and it doesn't address one of the most
important aspects of contesting, in that it is supposed to be fun. As
such, it is quite regressive.
Of course, if there are less participants, there will be less
-73 de Mike N3LI -
CQ-Contest mailing list