[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Statio inspections

To: KI9A@aol.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Statio inspections
From: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 9:47:16 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
So...the same logic could be used in say...NASCAR when they have to have the 
cars inspected prior to a race. Now why would ANY self respecting racers take a 
chance and have something 'not right'...and yet it happens. But more important, 
the rule is a preventative measure in my opinion. Will you EVER have a 
situation where there is zero percent chance of someone cheating? If you think 
so, let me know what you are smoking...it sounds gooooooood.

CQ is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Folks WANT the 'cheaters' 
dealt with (except maybe the cheaters)...yet when CQ imposes a measure to do 
just that it turns into HOME invasions...

For those politically minded I'm sure BDS and ODS have meaning...I am now going 
to coin a new phrase LOSDS or Lack of Spots Derangement Syndrome. (humor 

With the exception of physical hardware 'issues' like excessive power, I highly 
suspect that the data mining and analysis are as good or better tools for 
detecting rules infractions...the whole 'concept' of this new rule IMHO is to 
be just one more deterrent...and if it takes the 20-30 suspects down to 5-10 
well then it's done its job in my book.

I think a lot of folks are reading nefarious motives into something that is 
simply an attempt to stem what is becoming a more VISIBLE problem in the 
contesting world...

All that said...IF you have a better solution, by all means throw it out there 
for discussion. All I see are the negatives as to why this isn't good or why 
this won't work...heck, we haven't even seen it in action yet. Give it a couple 
of rounds and THEN level your criticism...or not.


---- KI9A@aol.com wrote: 
> Do you guys at CQ, really believe you will catch a cheater, while being  
> there?  According to the rule, you have to announce that you will be there.  
> I 
> seriously doubt a cheat, will indeed cheat then. 
> Wow, the more I read, and think about this, the childish this rule  is.  By 
> the way, I'm NOT condoning cheaters, or sticking up for them. But,  let's 
> try peer pressure first. Post a WALL OF SHAME, of caught cheaters, and  what 
> they did.
> Lets not become babysitters.
> 73- Chuck KI9A
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>