Hi Steve, fellow contesters,
There will always be "only a fraction" of cheaters caught.
The same goes for speeding on the road, only a fraction of infractors are
caught, still the majority respects the limits.
I agree that if the percentage is too low, there is not enough incentive to
comply to the regulations.
The only way to see if the policy works is doing afterward comparisons : Has
the number of "unassisted" logs been reduced ? Has the "cleanliness" of signals
improved ?
My own opinion is that is a very good move from CQ WW organizers.
I hope it will lead the way for other contests.
The only drawback I see is that in some cases I'm not sure all the participants
are able to perfectly read and understand all the rules. Some people might be
disqualified even if they were in good faith.
For "american" contests, I fear that some "non native english speakers" might
misread the rules.
The same is also true for contests like JARL, JIDX, AA or the western europe
countries where there might be some innacurate wording in the english
translations of the rules.
73,
Yan.
---
Yannick DEVOS - XV4Y
http://www.qscope.org/
http://xv4y.radioclub.asia/
Le 6 mai 2015 à 09:06, cq-contest-request@contesting.com a écrit :
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 11:53:26 -0600
> From: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log Checking Technology
> Message-ID: <55490396.5030305@arrl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Jeff,
>
> Everything in this posting was okay, until you said this:
>
>> Only a fraction of the cheaters are being caught.
>
> Please explain how you have come to this conclusion.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|