My QRV info World Wide Phone.

[kony at iodata.co.jp]

Hello everyone.

   I will work SO on 10m  last weekend of this month.
   My object is support other contester on Central JAPAN PacketCluster Node Network
  and 9area contester.
  This year,  I do not expect good propergation than last year .
 
  Catch you later.....  I hope...


73 Kony JH9VSF 

---------------------------------------------------
Internet  kony at iodata.co.jp kony at nsknet.or.jp
FWDNET  JH9VSF at JA9ZNJ.30.JNET9.JP
PacktCluster jh9vsf at jh9vsf
Niftyserve   HGA03610.niftyserve.or.jp

>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Fri Oct  4 00:59:43 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SOA vs SO...what dilemna?
Message-ID: <199610032359.QAA23232 at desiree.teleport.com>

>I think W3LPL has summed it up the best - if an entrant claimed to be in one
>category when he was a participant in another the answer to handling his
>entry is simple - Disqualification.
>
>Now for the hard part....proving this.

Jim, I think you gat to the REAL hard part later . . .

>But how do you prove someone is ease dropping? Beyond a shadow of doubt - or,
>since we are a litiguous people, beyond threat of a law suit.

Anybody can sue anybody else anytime for anything and today it happens all
the time.  Who in their right mind wants to risk being the target for a
lawsuit?  Especially over something so trivial as catching someone cheating
in a ham radio contest?  In my book, it just ain't worth the risk.  I would
certainly NOT expect the sponsors of any of these contests to step up to the
disqualification job and risk a lawsuit.

Hey, I just thought of an idea:  what about REQUIRING everyone who submits a
score for competition for awards or for listing in a publication agree, in
writing, to specifically NOT SUE ANYONE as a result of their
disqualification for any reason, proven or unproven.  Signing such an
agreement is a condition of contest entry.  No agreement.  No entry.

Actually, a simple change or addition to the statements now signed by
entrants that they have followed the rules of the contest is all that might
be necessary.  I am not sure what it would take to have this statement stand
up in court in order to immediately dismiss any lawsuit that may arise
because of disqualification but maybe one of our contester/attornies can
help us out here.

Take away the risk of litigation and I think we can make some progress.

Stan  w7ni at teleport.com


>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Fri Oct  4 00:59:50 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SOA
Message-ID: <199610032359.QAA23283 at desiree.teleport.com>

>>I think W3LPL has summed it up the best - if an entrant claimed to be in one
>>category when he was a participant in another the answer to handling his
>>entry is simple - Disqualification.
>>Now for the hard part....proving this.
>>But how do you prove someone is ease dropping? Beyond a shadow of doubt - or,
>>since we are a litiguous people, beyond threat of a law suit.
>
>    I don't believe there is any possible way to prove it beyond a shadow
of a doubt.

Even the court system in the U.S. only requires proving beyond a REASONABLE
doubt to get a MURDER conviction with a death penalty attached to it.
Should we ask for even MORE proof before disqualifying a contest cheater?

Stan  w7ni at teleport.com


>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Fri Oct  4 00:59:55 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SOA
Message-ID: <199610032359.QAA23339 at desiree.teleport.com>

>                    It's obvious Rich that you did not attend 
>the Dayton contest forum a few years ago! It was there that a 
>WELLKNOWN contester boldly said that he purposely made bogus 
>packet spots in order to create a diversion for some other 
>multiplier that he needed to work. This bogus spot on a rare 
>mult would pull people off the semi rare station enabling him to 
>work it faster. This is just one of the stunts some contesters 
>will perform to keep ahead of the rest of them. Someone is 
>always doing something devious. They'll do it till they get 
>caught and then come up with some other way to "bend" the rules 
>of ethical behavior. Welcome to contesting...
>                        73 Ken KP4XS
>Back to my cave...

Hey. Is this really any worse than spraying RF in a direction you don't
intend to listen in to keep the competition off your frequency?

Both are pretty rotten behaviour in my book . . .

Stan  w7ni at teleport.com