From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
12th March
> .. Suppose they just want to have a good time so
> they spot themselves to generate some Q's? Are we
> right in calling them cheaters?
> Remember, perception is reality!
My perception is that they are cheating. Therefore,
according to David, my reality is they are cheating.
> Contest committees and adjudicators; I urge you to
> handle these issues privately, promptly and with
> consequences, particularly for repeat offenders!
Should Madoff be dealt with in private?
> .. Dave K1TTT does a great job with his report, but
> there is really no reason to send these documents to
> the general contesting public,
It seems that David believes the general contesting
public should not be kept informed about matters of
general contesting interest?
From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
14th March
> .. who are we to tell them "do not operate in our
> contest unless you read and follow the rules" or
> even worse, try to publicly embarrass them for
> breaking the rules.
During the contest, and at the time K1TTT provides
his reports, we don't know whether "they" intend to
submit a log. If they are embarassed into not
submitting an entry, so much the better.
> Dave's reports are not proof positive or evidence
> of fact, they are merely circumstantial evidence.
They are evidence, nevertheless. Those named have
the right of reply on this forum.
From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
14th March
> .. "The most spotted DX stations" is entertaining and
> of benefit to everyone. I think we all like to know
> which stations are reported most frequently.
> .. The third section labeled "Cheerleader report" is
> where we get into the areas I believe are harmful to
> ham radio and contesting.
On the contrary. I believe it's entertaining and of
benefit to everyone. I think we all like to know which
stations are reported most frequently.
> .. First, there is nothing I have read (perhaps I am
> wrong and missed something) that prevents friends from
> spotting friends on the cluster.
It's against the rules when done with the knowledge,
approval or agreement of the person being spotted.
> Therefore, if CT2HHM wants to spot his friend CT2GSN
> 46 times, it is within his right to do so.
It's not - it's against the spirit of contesting.
> So, what do we do? We call them cheerleaders in
> order to publicly embarrass them to the world.
Precisely - because it works.
> .. The self spotters report. Why don't we call
> this the "Cheaters Report".
For the same reason the "Cheerleader Report" is
not called the Cheaters Report. The name describes
the nature of the cheating.
> .. What if the guy spotting himself simply wants
> to increase his pileup, thus increasing his fun for
> the day or weekend?
It's abuse of the system.
> What if the person being spotted isn't doing the
> spotting at all? What if it were a competitor?
> WHAT? A competitor pretending to be me and making
> it look like I was self spotting? Is that even possible?
Sure it's possible - occasionally the wrong people get
convicted.
> Some of these reports contain many "self spots"
> while others just a few. But we embarrass them equally.
Yes, it's called consistency.
> .. The date and the time of each spot is missing!
> Why are these pieces of information excluded from the
> report?
It's a summary report - we know the dates of the contest,
and the time doesn't matter. They're probably on DX
Summit if anyone really needs them.
> .. Seems to me, if people want to cheat, they'll cheat.
Nothing new there - we will catch some of them. The
fact that we may not catch them all is no reason to
stop trying.
> What are we doing to catch the power cheaters?
A separate issue.
> Is it fair to single out and publicly ridicule ONLY
> the spotters or those that we now have access to the
> logs?
"Fairness" is not the issue. We use the resources we
have.
> What's next? Remote power monitors?
I hope so.
> .. Where does our paranoia end?
I think I know where it starts.
> .. In my opinion, the packet cluster in conjunction
> with, the current rules lends itself to cheating.
> It's a cesspool of trouble.
Agreed.
> Want to stop packet cluster cheating? Change the rules!
Another option, as David suggests, might be to stop
packet cluster :-)
> .. Who cares if someone in ON spots themselves?
I do.
> It has little to no impact on the contest and we
> all know it.
Do we? It may influence the European results.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|