[CQ-Contest] self spotting vs other cheating

[K4SB]

Kelly Taylor wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm confused, but I'm not quite following the logic here. We
> should ignore infractions we can catch because the ones we can't are more
> serious?
---------------
Guys, I know I'm showing my ignorance here as regards this topic, but
would it not be a better solution to incorporate logic in the contest
program software which would detect if a telnet or rf cluster was in
fact in use? And assuming that the Cabrillo standard is not likely to
be dropped, it would seem to me that if a cluster or telnet was in
use, a relatively simple matter to incorporate that as a hidden file
or whatever? If only the software authors and sponsors know where this
"mystery" file or code are, it seems a lot of the cheating would be
eliminated.

Heck, for that matter, why not follow K6STI's example, and have the
software send a message if the chosen preferences when setup is done
do not agree with what is actually in use?

I realize this is not an "optimum" solution, but it would cut down on
cheating a fair amount. Of course, a second computer in use would
negate this, and I'm sure there are other factors also.

And if the above doesn't clearly illustrate the first 7 words in this
reply, I'm at a loss for words. ):>

73
Ed