CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Using ON4KST-chat

To: "'Stefan Pfeiffer'" <stefan@fam-pfeiffer.de>,<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Using ON4KST-chat
From: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:23:29 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
The place to draw the line is at what CQ WW defines as active or passive
use. Passive use of packet is permitted, active use is not permitted.

Very simple, and *all* contests should adopt that standard.

Passive use is where you connect and post spots of what you hear on the
radio and you receive those unsolicited spots posted by others of what they
hear on the radio.

Active use really anything more than passive use and some examples are where
you spot yourself, request specific things (multipliers, countries, zones,
states, etc.) to be spotted, consult with others using that medium, arrange
qsos, make schedules etc.

Active Use / Passive Use. Very easy to understand and solves the problem.

Clearly this chat thing is active use. It should be forbidden in all
contests - regardless of entry category.

73,

Bob W5OV




-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Pfeiffer [mailto:stefan@fam-pfeiffer.de] 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:00 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Using ON4KST-chat

Where (exactly) to draw the line?

Is using a grey line display cheating? Is using a beam direction map
cheating? Is 
using a callsign database cheating? Is using a feature like "suspect zones"
in 
software cheating? Obviously, some level of "cheating" seems to be "socially

accepted". The tolerated level differs from one to one, but there is a
limit.

Finally, the contest sponsor has to decide. Unfortunately, "unsportmanlike 
behaviour" is not sharply defined at all, everyone defines that in a
slightly 
different way. Only solution seems to be to define unwanted behaviour as far
as 
possible by the contest sponsor, but unfortunately, the ingeniousity of the
people 
reading the rules is much greater than the writers of the rules ever thought
of, 
so there will be "holes" forever, i fear. The most bullet-proof rule could
be like 
"unassisted = no more than a logging PC without any outgoing connections, no

mobile phones, ..." and "assissted = anything more than unassisted, as long
as no 
exchanges are transferred". Fine grained rules like "DX-Cluster = yes, but
no 
selfspots; Chatrooms = No, Instant Messengers = Yes, but...; Telephone =...;
Using 
qrz.com for state check=No" and so on lead nowhere, imho.

Having learned how easy it is to set up remote controlled RXes over the
internet, 
i second the fear of Mari, S56A, about that topic, for example.

Vy 73 es 55 de Stefan, DL1ELY

Peter Voelpel schrieb:
 > Why do you say "we" if you mean I?
 > For me all that you decribe it is nothing else then cheating if one is
 > taking advantage of other means then the radio to get qsos
 >
 > 73
 > Peter
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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