I don't get it. There is NOTHING in anyone's logs that isn't public
knowledge one way or another (assuming someone wanted to go through the
trouble to monitor your station). And if the "presumption of guilt" is
your issue, why not gripe about the log checking process itself, which
is done for two reasons only ... to prune errors and to catch cheaters.
Your choice is your choice, but I don't see the point in being indignant
about any of this. It's just a frigging hobby, after all, especially if
you're willing to do it just for fun as you say.
David Kopacz wrote:
> 6Y1V did not submit its log to CQ Magazine for the CQWW CW contest in
> I personally thank my guest operators Kelly VE4XT and Gary W5ZL for
> granting me the flexibility to make this decision. I want to stress that
> my opinions below are my own, not theirs. They neither condoned nor
> condemn my action; they simply agreed to provide me the latitude to make
> the decision without prejudice. For this alone, they are to be
> commended. In addition, they are both fine gentlemen and fantastic
> I am not in agreement with the CQWW committee's decision to publish logs
> without the implicit consent of the log owner simply to quell a fear of
> cheating, real or perceived. Note that I do think quell is a highly
> appropriate term here. If cheating is suspected, it should be dealt with
> privately and quietly between the committee and the accused. If outside
> assistance is needed to review logs, it should be solicited privately by
> the committee. If someone is found to be cheating, then making that
> knowledge public should be done at the discretion of the committee, but
> based upon firm rules applied equally to all.
> While I understand the new policy's intent, the results may be akin to a
> public flogging in a town square. It's likely that eventually someone
> will be accused of cheating when they are truly not guilty. The
> accusation will most likely come from someone other than the contest
> committee. Imagine if the contest committee doesn't make the painstaking
> effort necessary to thoroughly review the log of the accused in order
> to publicly exonerate him/her.
> The perception of being accused alone will leave lasting scars for the
> innocent contester as most competitors will not independently research
> the facts themselves in order to exonerate the accused; thereby leaving
> the impression the accuser is correct.
> Our society has moved beyond this method of social restraint, so why is
> amateur radio contesting moving in the opposite direction?
> In my opinion, in a hobby where the stakes are so low, there is no
> monetary reward and most of us do this just for fun, the idea of forcing
> people to open their personal logs for worldwide inspection is not only
> ludicrous but it is downright shameful. The contest committees might as
> well just be saying "We don't trust our fellow amateurs". For a hobby
> founded on International brotherhood and goodwill, this is a very sad
> Since I did not have an opportunity to express my opinion during the
> decision making process, my only recourse is to publicly object and not
> turn in my logs. Some have suggested I shouldn't participate at all. Why
> should I stop having fun just to make my point? Besides, if a few dozen
> participants with large logs stop sending them, it just may have a
> significant impact upon the log checking process and eventually the
> committee may see that not only is this decision unpopular but it has
> consequences as well.
> While opening my log to anyone that asks is really no big deal, having
> the right to decide to whom and when I open it is a big deal. I choose
> to open my logs to the contest committee, but I choose not to open them
> to the world. In addition, I choose not to enable a system that assumes
> guilt before innocence.
> David ~ KY1V
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list