I read with great interest everyone's opinion. I congratulate the
Committee's members for the great work they do. I like to participate in
an event who every cheater is caught. And I think Committee does its
best on it. There is always the chance to make an error. I don't like it
but I prefer Committee to be very strictly even that means it's possible
to make an error. It is not possible to have strong evidence every time.
This will make us better and more careful. The next time I will tell to
other guys of my team to be more careful and not to call someone to spot
us(Ido it now). Additionally I will ask to call everyone of their
friends and tell them to spot us only if they work us. I will do it
because I will know this time that Committee is very strictly.
I can understand that it is not possible every log to be checked.
Additionally I would like Committee checks randomly some of the smaller
logs and not only the leading stations.
In the other side, I think the penalties should not be the same for
everything. It is not right for me, someone loose wrtc because he has
been caught to self spot himself a couple of times. He will be
disqualified for this event but not in more. Also it is not right to
punish someone only with DQ when he has added fake qsos in his log. He
needs a greater penalty. I believe that Committee should decide the
penalty every time for every illegal action. In some cases, I would like
to see to get back even old records! At least this is my feeling..
...73 de Kostas SV1DPI
(One of SZ1A-EP6T)
On 22/2/2017 7:16 πμ, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
We don't know the stories, so who is to say that they are not guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, just because they argue they did nothing
wrong in a public forum proves nothing.
So the KP4XX should have been DQed based on what facts? Do we know if
CQ looked into that log? WRTC removed a Qso when they had proof of a
real contact. Isn't that backward?
A light hand? No thanks. This is a sport based around integrity.
UT5UGR should have been banned from all contests for 5 years if not
more for what was done and the amount of times he was caught. How many
logs were missed or not looked at. Sorry, once a cheater always a
cheater. People rarely change.
Turn down the amps, and play by the rules. Why would you want to
compete with cheaters? These folks are doing this on purpose and in
most cases planned.
It they want to cheat, go find another hobby to cheat at. Don't mess
up mine, thanks!
W0MU
On 2/21/2017 10:27 PM, Stephen Bloom wrote:
I think it would be simpler than that ..
There should be a high standard for a DQ ..something close to "Guilty
Beyond a reasonable doubt." Log padding is easily discernable as
UT5UGR found out ..and the example of KV4FZ where what is claimed is
impossible would be another example ..but the benefit of the doubt
goes to the "defendant." None of us other than whoever is on the
CQWW committee and the affected ops know the full story, but ..given
that this IS a sport where pride is the prize, "enforcement" needs to
have a light hand, otherwise, this type of argument is going to
dominate over actually having fun.
73
Steve KL7SB
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
Of W0MU Mike Fatchett
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:04 PM
To: Jamie WW3S <ww3s@zoominternet.net>; Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB
and WRTC
I read the book. I thought it was an ok read, but really fell short
in explaining the reasoning behind that decision. I suppose it was
done that way to protect those involved.
Not only to make that decision to find out later that the contact
actually existed. What exactly did they think happened there? Did
that team have some sort of clandestine sched with an SV5 and then
told him to work a few other people?
They had the proof in a recording. What more would they need. Why
the doubt? Who cast the doubt and for what reasons? I was not
really paying attention to radio at the time was there ever an
apology or statement from the WRTC folks?
These questions and answers really should have been in the book.
On 2/21/2017 4:54 PM, Jamie WW3S wrote:
Read the book Contact.....Good read....There was an audio recording
there also, QSO got thrown and it changed the results of last
wrtc......
On Feb 21, 2017 12:20 PM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
Mike’s right: we only have one side of the story, and we may never
get, nor ever be entitled to get, the other side.
That said, the availability of IP spoofing is not proof of guilt,
just as claiming a self-spot came from a different IP isn’t proof
of innocence. If his friends verify his claim, is that enough?
That an audio recording wasn’t proof enough to nullify a claim of
having arranged a QSO is interesting, however. As is the OP’s claim
every other complaint was resolved, except for two that resulted in
no points but also resulted in the DQ.
I’m also struck by wondering how likely it is a truly guilty party
would air an unjustified grievance, considering it is highly
unlikely a contest committee would buckle to such pressure.
Some of the vehemence directed towards eliminating cheating reminds
me of William Roper, from A Man for All Seasons, who would lay flat
all the laws of the land to get at the devil.
I’m not trying to impugn the committee nor impugn nor exonerate the
original poster. But it is all something worth thinking about going
forward.
73, kelly, ve4xt
On Feb 21, 2017, at 8:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
wrote:
I can't believe people cheat in radio contests. Shame on them.
Ops that are fantastic padding logs, power violations too many to
mention, remote receivers across the globe, self spotting and on
and on for what?
A 50 dollar wooden plaque or a piece of paper with fancy lettering
on it.
Once again we have heard one side of the argument. Does anyone
know what proof CQ has in this case. Maybe there is much more to
this story.
In computer gaming, every time a cheater that has been caught who
goes public to argue his case, each and every case that person was
proven to be in the wrong. Going public is the last hope to get
a bunch of sympathy from people that have ZERO facts.
For the record IP spoofing is incredibly easy. Who cares if you
have a static address. It means nothing and proves nothing. The
young hacker modding crowd have been using IP spoofing for years
and years.
Please stop trying to justify bad behavior.
W0MU
.
On 2/21/2017 8:17 AM, Alessandro Gromme wrote:
I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest as well if anyone
has broken the rules and has been unmasked.
if someone did not break the rules, and is accused of having done
so, has clear and irrefutable evidence of not having done and is
still qualified, this I call it "decide in advance and deliberately
to exclude someone from the rankings."
about your sentence: "They usually have some pretty solid evidence.
The WRTC committee makes the rules for qualifying not CQ." well ...
I can tell you that in my case they have an ip that is not located
in my area, which, as belonging to a range of dynamic IP is in turn
assigned to different users on the network, which can not in any
way attributable specifically to me.
I have a contract with the static IP Internet provider signed three
years ago, an IP that never changes, and that is only assigned to
my station.
Now I ask: "who have secure and unassailable proof of something?"
This is their strength, their luck: there are many people who can
not believe that the committee is acting improperly and therefore
assumes that they are always right, even in these cases as plugging
your eyes or putting your head under the sand like ostriches but it
is not so
2017-02-21 4:43 GMT+01:00 Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>:
I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest. That being said
I'm 100 percent sure that the CQWW contest committee doesn't take
the decision to disqualify someone li
_______________________________________________
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
|