[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking deadlines as a function of cheating

To: <kr2q@optimum.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking deadlines as a function of cheating
From: "Marty Bluhm" <w8aks55@gmail.com>
Reply-to: w8aks55@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:28:48 -0000
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I have to agree with you. The point has been made TIME AND TIME AGAIN, IF A
CHEATER IS GOING TO CHEAT , HE IS GOING TO CHEAT (the caps are intentional).
This horse has been ridden many many times to the point of death. How many
times are we going to have to endure the same arguments?
If the same people are abusing the time limit, then a note to sponsors and a
note to the offenders to the effect that they are noted and observed is more
to the point than a blanket (solution?).

As for myself, I have made the decision that no logs will be submitted from
this station and I'm just a squirt gun. I'm sorry that maybe just maybe my
contact may be the difference between somebody getting a certificate or the
million dollar prize.

However, think about this for a minute.

We are complaining that no new blood is coming into contesting.

What would  you think as a new contester logging onto this reflector and
reading the emails and subjects of the last month or so?

If I don't get my log in right away, I am suspected as a "cheater", even by
insinuation and that is exactly what it is, no matter how you sugarcoat it.

Is this contesting worthwhile?

To many, the answer maybe a simple "no".

Think about it, people. There is life outside contesting and above all
getting a log in before the deadline.


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of kr2q@optimum.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 21:34
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Log checking deadlines as a function of cheating

The following is my 2 cents' worth....

I think that the concept of a shortened deadline so as to impact those who
would "cheat" is
mostly off base (ie, wrong).

As I see it, the only "advantage" of waiting until the "end" is to utilize
LoTW or wait for some
QSLs to roll in....use those to "check" or "enhance" the log to be
submitted.  I have to believe
that the value of such an adventure is minimal, if of any value at all in
terms of sequence of

As for "everything else" that might fall under the domain of "cheating,"
anything an entrant can
do in 30 days can be done in one day; and there is no way that the deadlines
will be formally
reduced to UNDER one day.  A shortened deadline, for a cheater, just means
that they have to
do the same work in a shorter time frame.  Anyone who is determined to cheat
in the 30-day
period will also be determined to cheat within whatever period there is.

>From my perspective, someone who is doing LOG cheating, in 99% of the
cases, will be found
within 4 hours of initiating an analysis; probably a LOT less.  The other
.9% may take longer;
sometimes a lot longer, but will be discovered.

That being said, it is my opinion that the vast majority (the overwhelmingly
vast majority) of
entrants are not LOG cheats (let's skip power).  The original purpose of the
30-days was to
allow an entrant to "get it all together" using paper resources.  That
aspect is now outdated,
as evidenced by the huge number of e-LOGS submitted within 24 hours post
contest and
especially within 7 days post contest.  Those who take the full allotted
time are certainly
the outliers, but not violators and not presumed to be guilty (at least not
by me).

To sum up, just because someone takes the full 30-days to submit a log
carries no additional
meaning.  Shortening the submission time frame will not prevent someone bent
on cheating
from cheating.

de Doug KR2Q

CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list

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