[CQ-Contest] George Orwell would be proud!!!!

[Chuck]

To see his projections described in '1984' coming to pass - just a few years
late.

I have deleted the references to who posted what, because I'm not interested
in pointing comments at a PERSON.. just the thoughts that were presented.

A prior poster wrote -

"1) Spot stations during a contest when your true intent is to aid the
 scores of those who receive the spot over the spotting network -- never
spot
 a station when your true intent is to aid the score of the station being
 spotted. "

de K3FT  - This is something that is - seriously - being considered as a
valid course of action? HOW do you intend to verify/validate/prove/enforce
this one with any sense of reality or impartiality?

The INTENT is fine.. but the implementation and execution would be
IMPOSSIBLE to verify/validate/prove/enforce UNLESS you are inside the mind
of the person who is doing the spotting. Unless we, the contesting
community, have decided to engage in 'pre-emptive strikes' against someone
whose INTENT is going to be dealt with BEFORE they do it.. I suggest we stay
away from this one.  REMEMBER! PERCEPTION IS GOING TO BE THE GAUGE!

What may be 'unethical spotting' to ONE person is FINE with another. Are we
going to install a 'star chamber' of judges who shall pronounce one type of
spotting GOOD and another type of spotting 'BAD'?

Another poster wrote. "..Now, the limits of that have been stretched too
far, and despite the "up 5" attitude some are taking, this is a contest
ethics issue that needs to be
discussed, and in my opinion, should cause some rules to be created that
address the issue.  Sure, enforcement may be difficult, but the point is
that what should be acceptable behavior is not properly defined and it needs
to be."

de K3FT - Since the post deals with the effort to define, regulate, and
enforce INTENT before the ACT... HOW are you going to ENFORCE it without
imposing some rather restrictive (and some may say 'police state')
regulations and penalties?  (something about 'Guilty until proven innocent'
comes to mind)

You CAN'T LEGISLATE or REGULATE ETHICS!  You CAN teach ethics.. demonstrate
ethics, and help others who MAY or ARE violating the accepted ethics of
something to straighten up and fly right.

The problem is that no matter HOW hard you try to define 'ethical behavoiur'
you are going to run into the human-factor condition which will require you
to ALWAYS be modifying, tinkering, or playing around with the rules until
they become SO tight OR so 'cookie cutter' that they eliminate all the
humanity from the arena you are trying to deal with.

The suggestion that we deal with the BIG PICTURE issue and handle those
EGREGIOUS violations and problems is a good one.

BTW.. to take it one step farther.. since it is 'bad' to
alert/spot/pre-announce things because you might be aiding your
friend/club/group in increasing their score..

Then we MUST NOT announce or make known ANY operations by DXpeditions who
MIGHT be operating on the air during a contest! After all.. MOST of the
DXepedition ops are friends of, members of, or associated with SOMEONE who
might spot them or PUBLICIZE them.

73
Chuck K3FT