I think will be very good if you declare the category you will choose for a
contest, BEFORE the contest start.
I don´t know if in a website of the Contest Organizer or somewhere else.
It´s very common stations that "change" the submitted category after reading
other scores in 3830 website.
There´s may thinks that are out of control, I don´t know if RDXC
improvements will detect stations QRP and LOW POWER that are using more than
the claimed power. Also stations using more than the legal limit power are
very common.
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
-----Mensaje original-----
De: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] En nombre de vk4ti@yahoo.com
Enviado el: Lunes, 21 de Marzo de 2011 08:52 p.m.
Para: cq-contest@contesting.com; David Gilbert
Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] Technology against cheating?
Hi David,
There are several options the least of which is too make standards -
I believe that all contests should have all logs in inside the first week
and that paper logs should not be accepted.
I believe that people who are known to cheat should be disqualified for up
to 4 years to take into account a WRTC cycle.
I believe that the majority of people are honest and do all things in good
faith
I am a contest sponsor in my own right and am a committee member of another
and that is why I have followed this thread with interest and some dismay. I
have contested since high school so that makes it 30 plus years..
My preferred solution is to drastically shorten the times of log submission
and to ban known offenders - perhaps this could be an extension of all
contests....that a list of cheats is published and they are disqualified
from ALL contests.
What I have troubles coming to grips with is a recent Multi Single that was
DQd as it was obviously rubber clocking..this affected all members of the
team EVEN though the offending party submitted the log the others were
guilty by association. They had in fact returned to their homes and the log
was submitted later...hardly fair..
Regards
Trent VK4TI
--- On Tue, 22/3/11, David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com> wrote:
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Technology against cheating?
To: vk4ti@yahoo.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
Received: Tuesday, 22 March, 2011, 9:44 AM
That's all well and good for you personally, but that's an
irrelevant position in general. Clearly there has been some
significant cheating at high levels of ham radio contesting.
While that doesn't personally affect me (or apparently you) in the
least, it does affect the contest sponsors (who have their own
credibility to maintain) and any participant who puts forth
serious effort and currency toward a high score. Exactly what
would you have the sponsors do to address the situation? Check
one below:
a. ignore it
b. publicly plead for everyone to be honest
c. publicly accuse anyone suspected of cheating, even without
firm evidence
d. privately DQ anyone strongly suspected of cheating
e. incorporate tighter rules and enlist technology to enforce
them
Sniping from the sidelines and spouting moral platitudes isn't, or
at least shouldn't be, one of the options.
Dave AB7E
On 3/21/2011 1:57 PM, vk4ti@yahoo.com wrote:
This is really over board -
As opposed to most competitions, in Radio Contesting, we rely on the
Insurance adage of "utmost good faith"
We do get disappointed when that is not displayed but we need to get on with
it or find another hobby - its all part of the regime..Technology while
available is not always the answer to all questions..
As part of the disclosure regime - Last weekend we installed a ROTATOR !
Apparently no longer will we have to go out in the dark avoiding snakes and
sleeping Kangaroos to pull on the ropes to move the Yagis to new positions.
This piece of technology will save us many hours in a contest and
accordingly I need to let everyone know as its not a radio or an antenna -
!!
Next weekend in the WPX from our station in the bush (VK4KW) we will get on
air and have fun -competing against our best results and ignoring
the innuendo's that seem to plague other contest stations - we only had
internet installed late last year..
See you all in the WPX from down under
Trent VK4TI
--- On Tue, 22/3/11, Gerry Treas, K8GT <k8gt@mi.rr.com> wrote:
From: Gerry Treas, K8GT <k8gt@mi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Technology against cheating?
To: "burbidge terence" <terryburbidge@blueyonder.co.uk>,
somata90924@mypacks.net, cq-contest@contesting.com
Received: Tuesday, 22 March, 2011, 2:01 AM
Ahhh, but do you notice how many people DO stop at a stop sign? Of course
not. The human brain is wired to notice exceptions, not the commonplace.
Then, of course, we apply the exception as if it is the rule.
Most people do abide by the rules, but who notices them?
Sounds like the first caveman after we came out of the trees, "grumble. .
.don't know why we have to live in a cave, the trees were plenty good for
our ancestors. Changes. . whole world is going to the dogs, if you ask me.
. ."
Thanks for claiming that I'm not honest.
73, Gerry, K8GT
---- somata90924@mypacks.net wrote:
=============
if people would be HONEST WE WOULD not have to be bothered by all
this,,skimmers,,internet, cheaters, SPOTS,,,,,bahhhhhh humbug. Guess we
have lost that as a society, ever watch how many people never STOP at a STOP
SIGN?
joe w6vnr/zf2ah
-----Original Message-----
From: burbidge terence <terryburbidge@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Mar 18, 2011 7:21 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Technology against cheating?
<<I would describe recordings, whether of a whole
band or from individual stations, as technology
which inherently inhibits cheating, in contrast
to some other technologies which facilitate
cheating.>>
Great idea. Perhaps we could employ a firm of forensic experts to replay and
report on the recordings? Even simpler, let's set up a 'Star Chamber' of
distinguished contesters to investigate. Not just cheating but also
behaviour. For example, start/stop the clock when an SO2R/VFO leaves his run
frequency to make Q elsewhere and someone like me jumps in and steals it.
Maybe take the Star Chamber findings to the International Court, complete
with the 'usual suspects' who could then be interrogated and eventually
tried for their offences.
For goodness sake!
Cheers,
Terry
G4MKP
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|