It would not be surprised if 6Y1V contacts start to show up in logs in
greater frequency then in the past. Since there will be no way to verify
6Y1V QSOs, this multiplier is ripe to be added to those who have "creative"
logs.
Many contacts get logged that are questionable because of QRM, QRN, or
whatever that are later labeled NIL. That is nothing new.
In the old days before electronic logs, these questionable contacts just got
counted in most cases because of the sheer enormity of verification for
every contact. Now they can be weeded out through the useage of electronic
logs.
If everyone followed the stand of 6Y1V, then we would go back to old days of
paper logging when verifying contacts was very hit and miss. It would damage
the whole system of trying to make sure that accuracy counts.
I doubt many will want to go back to this old system which was subject to
abuse and arbitrary evaluation of logs.
If you do not want to play the game by the rules, try to change the rules.
If you cannot do so, then you don't play the game.
As for public logs, when I bother to check why I am not in somebody's log
that I have received a NIL , it is helpful to me to find out if someone was
so off base in copying my call that I am not in it, or that that person
never actually heard the QSO and the fault was at my end.
----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett
Sent: 30 January 2009 04:27
To: 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
So does this mean that 6Y1V will be DQed as the rules read that electric
logs are required for high scoring entrants or did 6Y1V just not submit
anything to CQ?
If there is nothing to hide and you stand behind your score then what do you
have to worry about?
I can see why some would not want other to see their logs as it potentially
could expose a strategy that others may not be on to aside from any
nefarious activities.
I guess if you are not intending to follow the rules then don't operate or
don't submit your logs for consideration of winning an award.
Mike W0MU
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:54 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
6Y1V did not submit its log to CQ Magazine for the CQWW CW contest in 2008.
I personally thank my guest operators Kelly VE4XT and Gary W5ZL for granting
me the flexibility to make this decision. I want to stress that my opinions
below are my own, not theirs. They neither condoned nor condemn my action;
they simply agreed to provide me the latitude to make the decision without
prejudice. For this alone, they are to be commended. In addition, they are
both fine gentlemen and fantastic operators.
I am not in agreement with the CQWW committee's decision to publish logs
without the implicit consent of the log owner simply to quell a fear of
cheating, real or perceived. Note that I do think quell is a highly
appropriate term here. If cheating is suspected, it should be dealt with
privately and quietly between the committee and the accused. If outside
assistance is needed to review logs, it should be solicited privately by the
committee. If someone is found to be cheating, then making that knowledge
public should be done at the discretion of the committee, but based upon
firm rules applied equally to all.
While I understand the new policy's intent, the results may be akin to a
public flogging in a town square. It's likely that eventually someone will
be accused of cheating when they are truly not guilty. The accusation will
most likely come from someone other than the contest committee. Imagine if
the contest committee doesn't make the painstaking effort necessary to
thoroughly review the log of the accused in order to publicly exonerate
him/her.
The perception of being accused alone will leave lasting scars for the
innocent contester as most competitors will not independently research the
facts themselves in order to exonerate the accused; thereby leaving the
impression the accuser is correct.
Our society has moved beyond this method of social restraint, so why is
amateur radio contesting moving in the opposite direction?
In my opinion, in a hobby where the stakes are so low, there is no monetary
reward and most of us do this just for fun, the idea of forcing people to
open their personal logs for worldwide inspection is not only ludicrous but
it is downright shameful. The contest committees might as well just be
saying "We don't trust our fellow amateurs". For a hobby founded on
International brotherhood and goodwill, this is a very sad time.
Since I did not have an opportunity to express my opinion during the
decision making process, my only recourse is to publicly object and not turn
in my logs. Some have suggested I shouldn't participate at all. Why should I
stop having fun just to make my point? Besides, if a few dozen participants
with large logs stop sending them, it just may have a significant impact
upon the log checking process and eventually the committee may see that not
only is this decision unpopular but it has consequences as well.
While opening my log to anyone that asks is really no big deal, having the
right to decide to whom and when I open it is a big deal. I choose to open
my logs to the contest committee, but I choose not to open them to the
world. In addition, I choose not to enable a system that assumes guilt
before innocence.
David ~ KY1V
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|