CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and WRTC

To: Stephen Bloom <sbloom@acsalaska.net>, 'Jamie WW3S' <ww3s@zoominternet.net>, 'Kelly Taylor' <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and WRTC
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:16:25 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
We don't know the stories, so who is to say that they are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, just because they argue they did nothing wrong in a public forum proves nothing.

So the KP4XX should have been DQed based on what facts? Do we know if CQ looked into that log? WRTC removed a Qso when they had proof of a real contact. Isn't that backward?

A light hand? No thanks. This is a sport based around integrity. UT5UGR should have been banned from all contests for 5 years if not more for what was done and the amount of times he was caught. How many logs were missed or not looked at. Sorry, once a cheater always a cheater. People rarely change.

Turn down the amps, and play by the rules. Why would you want to compete with cheaters? These folks are doing this on purpose and in most cases planned.

It they want to cheat, go find another hobby to cheat at. Don't mess up mine, thanks!

W0MU

On 2/21/2017 10:27 PM, Stephen Bloom wrote:
I think it would be simpler than that ..

There should be a high standard for a DQ ..something close to "Guilty Beyond a reasonable doubt."  
Log padding is easily discernable as UT5UGR found out ..and the example of KV4FZ where what is claimed is 
impossible would be another example ..but the benefit of the doubt goes to the "defendant."  None 
of us other than whoever is on the CQWW committee and the affected ops know the full story, but ..given that 
this IS a sport where pride is the prize, "enforcement" needs to have a light hand, otherwise, this 
type of argument is going to dominate over actually having fun.

73
Steve KL7SB



-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU 
Mike Fatchett
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:04 PM
To: Jamie WW3S <ww3s@zoominternet.net>; Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and WRTC

I read the book.  I thought it was an ok read, but really fell short in 
explaining the reasoning behind that decision.  I suppose it was done that way 
to protect those involved.

Not only to make that decision to find out later that the contact actually 
existed.  What exactly did they think happened there? Did that team have some 
sort of clandestine sched with an SV5 and then told him to work a few other 
people?

They had the proof in a recording.  What more would they need. Why the doubt?  
Who cast the doubt and for what reasons?  I was not really paying attention to 
radio at the time was there ever an apology or statement from the WRTC folks?

These questions and answers really should have been in the book.


On 2/21/2017 4:54 PM, Jamie WW3S wrote:
Read the book Contact.....Good read....There was an audio recording there also, 
QSO got thrown and it changed the results of last wrtc......

On Feb 21, 2017 12:20 PM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
Mike’s right: we only have one side of the story, and we may never get, nor 
ever be entitled to get, the other side.

That said, the availability of IP spoofing is not proof of guilt, just as claiming a 
self-spot came from a different IP isn’t proof of innocence. If his friends 
verify his claim, is that enough?

That an audio recording wasn’t proof enough to nullify a claim of having arranged a 
QSO is interesting, however. As is the OP’s claim every other complaint was resolved, 
except for two that resulted in no points but also resulted in the DQ.

I’m also struck by wondering how likely it is a truly guilty party would air an 
unjustified grievance, considering it is highly unlikely a contest committee would 
buckle to such pressure.

Some of the vehemence directed towards eliminating cheating reminds me of 
William Roper, from A Man for All Seasons, who would lay flat all the laws of 
the land to get at the devil.

I’m not trying to impugn the committee nor impugn nor exonerate the original 
poster. But it is all something worth thinking about going forward.

73, kelly, ve4xt

On Feb 21, 2017, at 8:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:

I can't believe people cheat in radio contests.  Shame on them. Ops that are 
fantastic padding logs, power violations too many to mention, remote receivers 
across the globe, self spotting and on and on for what?

A 50 dollar wooden plaque or a piece of paper with fancy lettering on it.

Once again we have heard one side of the argument.  Does anyone know what proof 
CQ has in this case.  Maybe there is much more to this story.

In computer gaming, every time a cheater that has been caught who goes public 
to argue his case, each and every case that person was proven to be in the 
wrong.   Going public is the last hope to get a bunch of sympathy from people 
that have ZERO facts.

For the record IP spoofing is incredibly easy.  Who cares if you have a static 
address.  It means nothing and proves nothing.  The young hacker modding crowd 
have been using IP spoofing for years and years.

Please stop trying to justify bad behavior.

W0MU


.
On 2/21/2017 8:17 AM, Alessandro Gromme wrote:
I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest as well if anyone
has broken the rules and has been unmasked.
if someone did not break the rules, and is accused of having done
so, has clear and irrefutable evidence of not having done and is
still qualified, this I call it "decide in advance and deliberately
to exclude someone from the rankings."

about your sentence: "They usually have some pretty solid evidence.
The WRTC committee makes the rules for qualifying not CQ." well ...
I can tell you that in my case they have an ip that is not located
in my area, which, as belonging to a range of dynamic IP is in turn
assigned to different users on the network, which can not in any
way attributable specifically to me.
I have a contract with the static IP Internet provider signed three
years ago, an IP that never changes, and that is only assigned to my station.
Now I ask: "who have secure and unassailable proof of something?"

This is their strength, their luck: there are many people who can
not believe that the committee is acting improperly and therefore
assumes that they are always right, even in these cases as plugging
your eyes or putting your head under the sand like ostriches but it
is not so

2017-02-21 4:43 GMT+01:00 Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>:

I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest. That being said
I'm 100 percent sure that the CQWW contest committee doesn't take
the decision to disqualify someone li
_______________________________________________
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>