On Dec 7, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Jukka Klemola wrote:
>
> Hans, please. Come on.
> You were asked for presenting an alternative way of getting the
> results.
Hans has an excellent point re public Hanging's. Any private
individual who takes on the job of "Contest Cop" will eventually come
under scrutiny him/herself. That's human nature. Other problems
include the individual is just that, an individual. Dave might be
performing a service, but he won't be around forever. And if he were
to decide to stop , then who would take over the responsibility?
If there is a systemic problem - and before I go much further, I'm not
really convinced that there is a cheater behind every tree - we need
to attack the problem in an organized fashion.
Here is an actual workable proposal:
FIrst thing that is needed is an organization. For the sake of
discussion, let's call it the CEG - Acronym for Contest Ethics group.
The CEG will need to do the following:
1. Determine what constitutes cheating - Sounds easy but isn't. Is
5.000001 watts at QRP cheating?
2. Determine punishments and methods of enforcement - A miscreant in
one contest would be punished equitably across all CEG associated
contests.
Here is where we come to that thorny public versus private thing. I
would postulate that if an organization were formed, the need to
perform a public lynching. There is a voyeuristic element to the whole
public outing issue anyway. Do we want the problem to go away, or do
we want the thrill of watching someone "get theirs". If public outing
is the decided upon mode of operation, get plenty of liability
insurance. Mistakes can be made.
The organization aspect of the punishment is a protection for those
who do the work. Those who would cheat might very well be those who
would seek retaliation against private individuals. Seems ridiculous
that would happen in contesting, but remember the incident in Texas a
few years ago when a Mother tried to have one of her daughter's
adversaries killed in order for her daughter to get on the High school
cheerleading team.
3. Determine monitoring methods.
4. Determine exactly WHO is monitoring - This is a troublesome one,
because the monitors need to be interested in "cleaning up Dodge
City", but to participate in contesting itself while functioning as a
contest cop would be a serious conflict of interest. Perhaps the
monitors/enforcers could be active contesters who take a multi year
leave of absence from contesting.
5. Come up with a methodology for reporting cheaters to the respective
contests. The offense, the punishment. This will allow sponsors to
have a list, similar to the "bad check" lists" at retail stores.
Punishments reported to sponsors are the minimum punishments for the
offense. Contest sponsors are allowed to enact additional punishments
as they see fit.
6. Contesters would need to buy-in - contesters should be willing to
support the CEG. Dues, and some sort of membership requirements and
certificate would be applicable.
7. Contest sponsor buy-in - This part is tricky. The CEG organization
would need to have a way of both working cooperatively with the
contest sponsor, yet have some leverage to be effective. The sponsor
would need to have autonomy over it's rules. You're not there to say
how they run the contest, your there to help out with ethical issues.
8. Here's the tricky part, but one I think is crucial. Members of the
CEG would need to elect which contests they participate in. And the
members would be suggested to participate only in CEG associated
contests.
9. Eventually, if popular enough, almost all contests will be brought
into line and operate in association with the CEG.
All of the usual issues of forming an organization will apply.
Articles of incorporation, bylaws, rules writing, election of
officers, that sort of thing.
Okay - there ya go. An outline, a plan of attack, and a workable
solution. There are some issues - there always are, but this method
will allow cheaters to be punished across many if not all contests.
Now all that is needed is to see if there are people out there who
will take up the task, or if they would rather just complain.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|