[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWWDX origins of SOA - addendum

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWWDX origins of SOA - addendum
From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:06:19 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kr2q@optonline.net>

> In the 1989 Phone writeup, the category name was changed to SO-Assisted.

My thanks to Doug for the background to Single Op
Assisted.  It was very helpful, and I think the
description was a good choice at the time.

What seems to have happened in recent years is that
increasing numbers of contesters are ignoring the
fundamental difference between SO and SO Assisted,
they use packet and claim they are "pure" SO.

The problem, with reference to CQWW, is compounded
by the apparent fact that CQ has not, so far,
penalised packet cheaters to any significant extent,
and removed corresponding credits for country,
continent and world records.  As long as this
situation persists, CQ will lose credibility.

Now that the CQWW logs are publicly available, we
have the means to analyse them and determine, to a
high degree of confidence, exactly who the packet
cheaters are - and, independently, the self-spotters.

Why can't CQ take the initiative, and DQ packet
cheaters, hit them with a 2-5 year ban (just like
drug cheaters in athletics), and delete any records
they may hold?  Isn't it better for CQ to do this
rather than have individual accusations flying
around this and other mailing lists?

I know that CQ is a commercial organisation, with
a vested interest in not rocking the CQWW boat,
but credibility matters.  Let's start with the
2007 logs, and then work back.

Paul EI5DI
CQ-Contest mailing list

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