A rule that requires anyone with a sniff of an award to record the entire
contest, just to prove their innocence, would be like the court system
requiring all citizens, innocent and otherwise, to wear body cameras at all
times so that in the event of some future incident, the court may review the
recording to prove innocence.
Forcing the majority to waive their right to be presumed innocent because some
operators may cheat is a perversion of most countries' bills of rights, which
govern all aspects of life.
Reasonable, in my view, is to attach the requirement of video recording,
showing all computer screens, keyboards and radios, of those operators who have
proven themselves to be dishonourable, as a condition for the lifting of any
sanction. As pointed out by others, an audio recording only proves a QSO took
place: it doesn't prove excess power, illegal use of assistance or the use of
non-amateur means to solicit Qs.
Nobody without cause should be required to prove innocence. You ARE innocent.
It's up to the court, or contest adjudicators, to prove guilt.
As I suggested, suspending presumption of innocence is reasonable for, as an
example, TO7A, and perhaps everyone else on the latest DQ list. But not for
everybody. Let's not begin contests assuming everyone is a liar, ok?
73, Kelly
ve4xt
Sent from my iPad
> On May 24, 2015, at 10:03 AM, "Ken Low" <kenke3x@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> N4XL wrote:
>
> "I will be changing my station to include that capability should I ever be
> fortunate enough to have a high enough score to attract their interest."
>
> I am not picking on Kevan with my reply - but I have been reading the
> reflector traffic in recent weeks and will simple use his post as a lead-in
> to make a few points.
>
> I really don't see what all the fuss is about. In fair competitions like
> WRTC, everyone's operation is already recorded. In major competitions like
> Russian DX it's already required to log frequencies of each QSO. These are
> not new requirements.
>
> If you don't want to risk being requested to submit a recording, then don't
> cheat in the first place!
>
> The recent TO7A debate recently shed light into the effort and techniques the
> Contest Committee must undertake to root out cheating. Do we want to clear
> up our sport or not? If yes, let's make it easier for the cheaters to be
> caught.
>
> Here's an example. I am operating SOAB Unassisted with SO2R. I am running
> on 15. I tune on 10 on Radio 2 and populate my band map with calls to work.
> But I have a good run going on Radio 1 and I can't work the 10-meter
> stations yet, or I'll lose my run frequency. After 20 minutes my run rate
> on 15 drops (or I get run off my run frequency). I start clicking on my
> saved spots on 10. Click/work, click/work, etc - they are all new Mults at
> one per minute. If this log were analyzed, would it not look a bit
> suspicious? All those new Mults in a row, with a crowded band, at 8-15 kHz
> intervals, jumping from one to another? But what I did was completely legal.
>
> Now consider 'Competitor X', who also enters SOAB Unassisted, but he has
> Internet enabled in his shack. He submits the exact same log as me,
> identical QSO pattern over the time frame just discussed. But he did not
> find those 10-Meter Mults on his own. He found them by clicking spots after
> he changed bands.
>
> Now picture yourself on the Contest Committee trying to find out who cheated
> and who did not. You see both log sections above and identify the two
> identical QSO patterns as suspicious. Wouldn't an audio recording, along
> with frequency information, be useful and definitive to the Contest Committee
> in proving I did not cheat? It sure would.
>
> I fully support all the proposed CQ rule changes. My view is: either we
> want to clean up the sport or not.
>
> If you are a casual participant (and many on this list complaining are casual
> participants) - just take a deep breath - you are not likely to be asked for
> an audio recording anyway. The Contest Committee is not interested in
> conducting a witch hunt on the #46 finisher. They have too much work
> dealing with the top scorers.
>
> If you are aiming at the Top-10 box, you already have enough technology in
> your shack that recording your operation will not be a problem. If this
> reduces cheating by others, you'll move up in the results as the cheaters
> above you are disqualified. Either way, you should welcome the rule change.
>
>
> Remember - the easiest solution would be to eliminate the SOAB Unassisted
> category altogether and assume everyone is Assisted. If you want to retain
> SOAB Unassisted and have results that mean something, then logging the
> frequency for each QSO and recording your effort is the price of admission.
>
> 73,
>
> Ken KE3X
>
>
>
>
> Ken KE3X
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|