All of what you said was true. About all we can do is ...(within reason),
leave as little ambiguity as possible as far as how we define rules .. and
no matter what ..people will still find the grey areas. The reason I can't
see sweating this too much is..we aren't competing for cash, or contracts,
or endorsements etc. It's all about reputation. Every once in awhile,
given our current level of "self enforcement", when someone pushes it just
too far, they get caught, and that does provide *some* boundary. It's
really all about reputation. Whether it is ever formally proven, we *know*
who is using remote receivers, running 5KW, and the like. They also know we
know. Their wins have a mental asterisk. What else really matters in this
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Cheating
I'm not in favor of inspectors, mostly because I don't think they are at all
practical. But the problem isn't going to go away ... it's human nature to
cheat. Seriously --- there have been lots of studies on the the topic of
cheating and what variables make people more likely to cheat under what
circumstances and Radiosport happens to have a majority of those factors.
Out of pure curiosity I once did some casual research on the subject and
even (per his request) sent a summary to Randy, K5ZD when he was doing a
rules review some time ago.
You can believe me or not, but I'm telling you that we're wired to cheat in
competitive environments, or when something of perceived value (time, money,
glory, gratification, etc) is at stake. I could give several everyday
examples that would make almost all of us take pause. We simply are not
inherently honest. Even our "morality" mostly boils down to learned and
ingrained social pressures. Lots of hams seem to think that humans are
fundamentally honest and that the urge to cheat is some sort of aberration.
>From an anthropological point of view, it's the other way around.
There may be a way to come up with a contest format without cheating, but it
won't be because people didn't try.
On 8/21/2016 2:38 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> Solve the real problem, and the need for inspectors ought to go away.
> So how do you solve the real problem?
> 73, ron w3wn
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list