The issue is not how to enforce the rules - contest committees can
disqualify or ban operators. The issue is that committees do not want
to make a mistake and accuse someone of cheating and be wrong. My idea
is to change to rule to make it easier to determine violation. This
might give adjudicators enough certainty to DQ those cheating.
Tom - N1MM
On 10/14/2011 2:27 PM, w1md@cfl.rr.com wrote:
> Circular logic...of a sort.
>
> The issue (it appears) is how to ENFORCE the rules...not what the rules are.
>
> So, whether the rule states no more than the amount of power allowed by LOCAL
> rules/regulations or no more than 1000watts<period>...HOW do you enforce it?
>
> Rules can be written all day long...but UNTIL there is a method to ENFORCE
> the rules...they are worth...well, you get the picture.
>
> Of course, 98+ of the participants hopefully are following both the spirit
> and the law. Figure 2% of 4000 entrants = 80 cheaters out of the crowd...
>
> MD
>
> ---- N1MM<tfwagner@snet.net> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2011 12:06 AM, Ken Widelitz wrote:
>> <snip>
>> A big amp in the shack is not PROOF of violation.
>> <snip>
>>
>> But there is no reason a rule couldn't be drafted to outlaw amps capable
>> of much more than legal power being present during the contest or even
>> at any period of time prior to the contest. Proving that a large amp
>> is/was present is easier than showing that it is being used to produce
>> illegal power.
>>
>> Contesting is a game, the rules can be anything the sponsor wants. If
>> such a rule would make catching cheaters easier, then a sponsor could
>> impose it.
>>
>> Tom - N1MM
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|