Then I am a disgrace, and proud of it! Timely feedback from peers has
proven much more effective than long delayed and impersonal feedback from
contest log checkers. It is often well after the log check deadline before
contest sponsors even ask for spotting data, then they are busy processing
logs and compiling results, how much time do they have to contact someone
who's language they probably don't speak to investigate a rule violation and
then instruct a newcomer in proper operation?? KX9X are you watching???
When and how might you have handled that PU self spotting situation in your
normal process there??
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 17:27
> To: Robert Naumann
> Cc: k1ttt@arrl.net
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report
>
> Robert,
>
> I only had to read the first paragraph of your reply before responding.
> Perhaps I'll read the rest once you have replied to this.
>
> What about the Brazilian boy? Was he really cheating or simply unaware
> that spotting oneself was against the rules or socially unacceptable?
>
> Some claim that if we didn't have Dave's (K1TTT's) report made public,
> no one would have informed him and his actions would continue.
>
> Hogwash! Dave's report could easily be forwarded to the authorities (AKA
> Contest committee) and the same result could have occurred through
> private communications with him and/or his club.
>
> There was no reason whatsoever to publicly embarrass this young ham.
>
> Anyone that believes otherwise is a disgrace to amateur radio. PERIOD!
>
> David ~ KY1V
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Naumann [mailto:w5ov@w5ov.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 6:28 AM
> To: David Kopacz
> Cc: k1ttt@arrl.net
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report
>
> Dave (KY1V),
>
> I completely disagree with you on this. Where's the public ridicule of
> anyone? Who has been reported incorrectly in this report? I don't recall
> a
> single case where someone who has been reported like this has been
> proven to
> have not been actually cheating. Perhaps I just missed it?
>
> What K1TTT does is summarize the spot data that is available publicly,
> and
> make it meaningful information to the entire contest community - yes,
> including log adjudicators. Thanks to K1TTT for taking the time to do
> this
> for all of us.
>
> I strongly suspect that this report has kept people from cheating
> because
> they know that if they do, they will be identified like this. While no
> one
> can prove or disprove such a non-event, I think a reasonable person can
> conclude that the report has likely had a preventative effect. For this
> reason alone, this type of summary is clearly good for the contesting
> community at large and should continue.
>
> Not only that, it is likely that some have learned that what they were
> intending to do or thinking about doing was cheating - only through
> these
> reports. So, from an educational perspective the report is a positive
> thing.
>
> It is clear, as we saw in the last contest, that even new contesters
> (e.g.;
> the young PY op) can learn from this report and become better
> contesters.
>
> It is also clear that despite this information being available after
> every
> contest that some are still determined to cheat. The fake callsigns and
> repeated attempts to disguise their self-spotting are especially
> repugnant.
> This is not an issue of perception.
>
> This one (and the numerous other phony spots for this guy) really make
> the
> point:
>
> 200.85.50.114 K2TT-@ 21224 ZP8VAO CQ DX CONTEXT
>
> CQ DX CONTEXT? From K2TT? On a ZP ISP? I think not.
> ^
> This furtive behavior makes clear that the intent is not just that "they
> just want to have a good time so they spot themselves to generate some
> Q's".
> If that was the intent, then why attempt to hide it?
>
> Yes, this is clearly cheating and one cannot logically come to another
> conclusion. My hope is that those who do this and end up in these
> reports
> will learn from it and just not do it in subsequent contests. Even
> though we
> all know that ZP8VAO or one of his cheerleaders was doing this, no one
> will
> care that he does not show up in this listing in the next contest - or
> even
> remember that he was listed this time. All these callsigns are not the
> people behind them. They are not being dragged out into the street and
> publicly flogged. If they don't want to be listed in such a summary,
> then
> don't cheat! It's that simple.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if eventually, K1TTT could send out one of these
> reports
> saying "sorry, nothing to report this time"? The only way that will ever
> happen is if this information continues to be made public and people
> learn
> from it. Again, as we saw with the young PY in the last contest, he
> learned
> quickly from his fellow PY contesters who saw the report and told him
> that
> what he was doing was wrong, and he will now correct it. I doubt that
> his
> callsign will ever be in K1TTT's report in the future.
>
> It works!
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:38 PM
> To: CQ-Contest Contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report
>
> "We need less apparent cheaters along with the sunspots."
>
> ...
>
> "Do Caribbean stations really need the extra help?"
>
>
>
> I am all for the sunspots!!!
>
> Here is another problem caused by this idea that "Sunshine is the best
> disinfectant".
>
> Either you outright name the stations you "think" are cheating or you
> categorize them as Mike has done.
>
> Either way, I think it is bad for contesting. If you outright name them
> and you're wrong, the damage is already done. If you categorize them,
> you scorn an entire group which is completely unfair.
>
> I have yet to see one recipient of these documents do independent
> research to confirm their validity. I am not saying they are incorrect,
> but everyone seems to take the data faithfully on face value and run
> with it. No one seems to consider there may be an underlying factor with
> doesn't carry an ill-conceived plot to cheat. In fact, what if someone
> isn't really competing? Suppose they just want to have a good time so
> they spot themselves to generate some Q's? Are we right in calling them
> cheaters?
>
> Remember, perception is reality!
>
> Contest committees and adjudicators; I urge you to handle these issues
> privately, promptly and with consequences, particularly for repeat
> offenders!
>
> Dave K1TTT does a great job with his report, but there is really no
> reason to send these documents to the general contesting public, other
> than for entertainment purposes or so a few can bathe in public
> ridicule.
>
> Please, let's stop this now.
>
> David ~ KY1V
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|