Mike, I don't think that's realy fair to CQ. I'm under the impression that
if there is one sponsor that tries to do something about cheating, it's CQ
magazine.
However, I think it's a shame that cheaters get the opertunity to withdraw
their logs and not get a penalty.
73 form another volunteer fire fighter.
Maarten PD2R
Op vrijdag 14 september 2012 schreef W0MU Mike Fatchett (w0mu@w0mu.com) het
volgende:
> If the sponsors are not going to do anything we can either accept that
> cheaters may win the contest and absolutely nothing will get done about it
> or not operate in those contests. Call it a boycott if you will.
>
> The real issue here is the good ole boy network. Lots of people know what
> is going on and they bury their heads in the sand or a wink wink.
>
> Maybe things would be different if CQ and whoever is responsible would
> spend more time policing and spending less time and column inches telling
> us just how terrible split operation is.............. Read between the
> lines. We know cheating is going on but lets deflect the attention to
> ........................split.**........................ yeah!
>
>
>
> On 9/14/2012 11:40 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
>>
>> "Until then I think the public outing of the perpetrators and life time
>> bans are sufficient. "
>>
>> Yeah, that's actually the problem ... those don't happen. You see
>> people posting all the time about cheating instances that they are aware
>> of, yet they almost never post the callsign of the perpetrator. Hams who
>> do speak out against competitors they have reason to believe are cheating
>> are themselves publicly vilified (check back in the CQ-Contest reflector
>> archives and you'll see what I mean). A couple of years ago I was looking
>> at online pictures from Dayton that showed several hams getting chummy with
>> an east European ham that had just been disqualified from one of the major
>> contests instead of treating him as a pariah. Hams caught blatantly
>> cheating are allowed to withdraw their logs or reclassify them instead of
>> receiving a lifetime ban.
>>
>> We get what we deserve.
>>
>> Please don't get me wrong ... any contest that forces me to prove I
>> didn't cheat is a contest that I won't be entering. I'm not going to be
>> paying the penalty for someone else's bad behavior.
>>
>> But we wouldn't need to even be discussing such things if we all simply
>> decided to excise the cheaters from our midst.
>>
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/14/2012 8:16 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>
>>> When the prizes for a Amateur radio contest equate to serious cash you
>>> can talk to me about video and audio recording and having to hire an entire
>>> staff to make sure the rules are followed. Until then I think the public
>>> outing of the perpetrators and life time bans are sufficient.
>>>
>>> This is supposed to be for fun and to hone our message handling skills.
>>>
>>> W0MU
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>
--
73, Maarten PD2R
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|