[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
From: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:44:29 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Barry Merrill wrote:
> Failing to submit your log is a gross injustice to the
> real competitors, especially those who are seeking a
> berth at the next WRTC.

Respectfully, another option is to not work the contest at all. 
Presumably that wouldn't be so good either.

> Without your log, any station that mis-logged your call,
> or zone, or band, etc., will have unfortunately and 
> unfaily received UN-DESERVED QSO points and a MULTPLIER.

Point of reference. In the contest I adjudicate, looking at the logs, 
about twice as many people do some operation as send in logs.

Give it up. Unless you plan on making up some sort of list to "shun" 
those who don't send in logs, anyone can operate in a contest, and there 
is no way you can stop them.

> Your self-centered, myopic, undefined fear of a violation 
> of your personal privacy, by making your operator's contacts
> public, especially when you didn't even make those contacts,
> could have caused a real winner to lose.

Yes, in some cases you are correct. But your above attack is a little 
harsh, The Ops at Dave's station have no doubt agreed to his actions, 
unless you doubt his veracity when he said as much.

But that might just be the price you pay. If you just have to have those 
logs published, some people might just not like that. They might use the 
airwaves as is their complete right. They might not submit the logs, as 
is their right.

> Your actions DO have significant negative impact on other hams.

And we have seen right here that there are Hams who have already assumed 
that something is amiss in the operations. It is not possible to 
(credibly) deny that the main reason that logs are published is for 
people to examine them for cheating. If a Ham doesn't play by the rules, 
they are assumed guilty of cheating

Any other reason - strategy studies for instance - is time less well 
spent than spending it in good old chair time.

I have to repeat it, y'all just can't have it both ways. Rules that are 
philosophically repugnant to some people are just that. Don't be angry 
if they don't accept what they find repugnant.

The truly sad part of this is that there are much better ways to find 
cheaters. Too many want a vigilante force, and scarlet letters. Instead, 
we'll just continue to argue the old open log question.

Are open logs going to find people who are running too much power?

Are open logs going to find multiple Ops at a single op station?
        (save for some dummies who seem to mysteriously be able to operate on 
two frequencies at the same time, or come up with an insane rate)

Spotting? That might be a use for people to scrutinize, there can be 
some correlations, but ya gotta be careful. I've seen some amazing 
things in log checking. Given the number of QSO's in a contest, it will 
be like poker - sometimes there are royal flushes, sometimes there are a 
pair of deuces.

But your anger is just part of the reason why people have a problem with 
the "open log" issue. It has come to the point where those who oppose it 
are assumed to be cheating, or at the very least, trying to hide something.

And people who do think that there is no other reason, are creating a 
big problem that can undermine their good intentions.

        - 73 de Mike N3LI -
CQ-Contest mailing list

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