I don't see how Cabrillo could be used to write a "hidden" file... I'm sure
Trey & Tree will correct me if I'm wrong, but it sets out how to write a
"standard format" undelimted ASCII text file that can be read and processed
by the contest organizer's and their computer systems (from the email
"robot" on down).
Ed had a nice thought... but I also suspect that those sophisticated enough
to try and go to these lengths to fake their identities on the cluster would
easily discover hidden files (and how would you send those files without the
cheater's knowledge?) or other hidden clues.
This is not intended to condone cheating -- far from it! I'm just not sure
what the practical solution is. We could ask a contest organizer to simply
add to the rules something to the effect of "faking out the packet cluster
to hide your identity is grounds for disqualification" which sounds nice on
paper... but enforcing it, that's the rub...
73, ron wn3vaw
"I would like to do 3000 more" -- Sportscaster Guy Junker on his 3000th
"Sportsbeat" show.
The next night, after his 3001st show, for reasons left unclear, Fox Sports
Net Pittsburgh declined to renew his contract & fired him.
(Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Saturday, 17 May 2003)
----- Original Message -----
From: K4SB <k4sb@earthlink.net>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting vs other cheating
Kelly Taylor wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm confused, but I'm not quite following the logic here. We
> should ignore infractions we can catch because the ones we can't are more
> serious?
---------------
Guys, I know I'm showing my ignorance here as regards this topic, but
would it not be a better solution to incorporate logic in the contest
program software which would detect if a telnet or rf cluster was in
fact in use? And assuming that the Cabrillo standard is not likely to
be dropped, it would seem to me that if a cluster or telnet was in
use, a relatively simple matter to incorporate that as a hidden file
or whatever? If only the software authors and sponsors know where this
"mystery" file or code are, it seems a lot of the cheating would be
eliminated.
Heck, for that matter, why not follow K6STI's example, and have the
software send a message if the chosen preferences when setup is done
do not agree with what is actually in use?
I realize this is not an "optimum" solution, but it would cut down on
cheating a fair amount. Of course, a second computer in use would
negate this, and I'm sure there are other factors also.
And if the above doesn't clearly illustrate the first 7 words in this
reply, I'm at a loss for words. ):>
73
Ed
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|