Self-spotting, Packet, Ethics, and Cheaters
I don't know about the other contests, but for CQWWDX, self-spotting is
explicitly illegal.
As for all the gentlemen who state that, "I swear I did not spot myself," they
are probably telling the truth. What you need to discern is what "agreement(s)"
were made to have friends, associates, partners-in-crime (club members?) do the
spotting for them. This is functionally the same as self-spotting but gives the
callsign owner/operator the wiggle room to confidently state, "I didn't do it."
To think that such arrangements do not occur is not to think at all.
I think that what Dave (TTT) is doing is mostly great stuff. I limit it to
"mostly," because this sort of thing may have been more useful if provided to
the contest sponsors instead of a public forum. But perhaps he has already done
that and, lacking any progress, he chose to use this forum. Still, I
congratulate him on his detective work; it is very impressive.
As for use of packet and it's effect on contesting. This is a mixed bag mostly
because contesting is a mixed bag. That is, contesting is composed of serial
entrants, guys looking for only new band-countries, guys "just helping out the
club," etc. The degree of seriousness varies greatly.
For those us (and I include myself in this group) who believe that contesting
is ultimately a test of personal skill (knowledge of propagation by band,
assembly of a competitive stations - for whatever category, ability to generate
qso's with mults or, in general, ability to legally optimize one's efforts so
as to maximize one's score), packet usage is not something we think of as
improving our innate abilities (assisted category excepted).
However, as a contest sponsor (or committee member), or even as an entrant, we
all must acknowledge that packet is useful for many of the less-serious
participants/entrants; it is reason for them to get on during the contest. This
helps them and it in many cases, it helps us too (more activity, more qso's,
maybe even more mults, especially in something like the WPX). Contesting would
just be less fun for the serious guys without packet (albeit indirectly). Ban
packet completely? I doubt it. Packet is healthy for the contest as a whole.
As others have clearly and sometimes eloquently pointed out, packet usage
inhibits (or worst case, prevents) the attainment of contesting skill. If
packet were only a crutch, it might not be that bad. But too many potentially
great contesters/operators and dumbed-down of their own accord by failure to
grow beyond packet-reliance; what a shame. If contest clubs would focus more on
the skill level of their membership in the long-term and less on the "how big a
score can we get today" mentality, I, for one, would be happier with the
results.
Ethics - well.what an interesting topic and certainly directly related to
cheating. Unfortunately, I have to completely disagree with one portion of "the
other Doug's" recent posting. I don't think that cheaters give a damn about
being caught and/or about being potentially embarrassed. More often than not
(just my guess.sorry to be rhetorical), cheaters will just search for another
methodology of cheating. To them, they are not cheating.they are "exploring the
boundaries of the contesting rules - pushing the envelope."
What drives one to this stance is not a topic that I care to explore here. In
certain regions of the world, one is considered an idiot if they chose not to
"push the envelope." I am still in shock about the group who said they were
legal, despite having multiple stations all over the entire country, because
all the stations were connected by GOVERNMENT OWNED STREETS, and they were,
therefore, all contiguous and under single-entity ownership. I don't know about
you, but for me, that exemplifies the cheater mindset. Yet, they confidently
stated that they had complied with the letter of the rules. I understand that
their perspective was corrected.
Certain contest expeditions ask potential operators if they, "have a problem
with high power." Well, gee whiz, I sure do. But how many guys agree to operate
there anyway? What does this tell the station owner/operator? Those who do so
are thoroughly complicit in rules violation, yet bask in the glow of a high
score. [DG - what guilt did these guys have? None.] Others, when confronted
with a similar situation of which they had not previous knowledge, may choose
to operate there anyway but state, "There won't be a next time." Still the
wrong message as actions speak louder than words.
Contest Sponsors and Contest Committees are not all-powerful, all
knowing-deities. They NEED YOUR HELP! That does not simply mean "turn the guy
in," it means that you should take a stand - make your position known then and
there and in a direct manner. I know one local in NJ who is not the world's
greatest contester, maybe not even 2nd tier, but when confronted with a group
that wanted to run soup (high power), he turned them down. THAT's what we need!
THAT's what you need to do.
Keep up the good work, Dave! I hope you spawn some (many) followers.
|