[CQ-Contest] Self-spotting, Packet, Ethics, and Cheaters

[DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL]

Self-spotting, Packet, Ethics, and Cheaters

I don't know about the other contests, but for CQWWDX, self-spotting is explicitly illegal.

As for all the gentlemen who state that, "I swear I did not spot myself," they are probably telling the truth. What you need to discern is what "agreement(s)" were made to have friends, associates, partners-in-crime (club members?) do the spotting for them. This is functionally the same as self-spotting but gives the callsign owner/operator the wiggle room to confidently state, "I didn't do it." To think that such arrangements do not occur is not to think at all.

I think that what Dave (TTT) is doing is mostly great stuff. I limit it to "mostly," because this sort of thing may have been more useful if provided to the contest sponsors instead of a public forum. But perhaps he has already done that and, lacking any progress, he chose to use this forum. Still, I congratulate him on his detective work; it is very impressive.

As for use of packet and it's effect on contesting. This is a mixed bag mostly because contesting is a mixed bag. That is, contesting is composed of serial entrants, guys looking for only new band-countries, guys "just helping out the club," etc. The degree of seriousness varies greatly.

For those us (and I include myself in this group) who believe that contesting is ultimately a test of personal skill (knowledge of propagation by band, assembly of a competitive stations - for whatever category, ability to generate qso's with mults or, in general, ability to legally optimize one's efforts so as to maximize one's score), packet usage is not something we think of as improving our innate abilities (assisted category excepted).

However, as a contest sponsor (or committee member), or even as an entrant, we all must acknowledge that packet is useful for many of the less-serious participants/entrants; it is reason for them to get on during the contest. This helps them and it in many cases, it helps us too (more activity, more qso's, maybe even more mults, especially in something like the WPX). Contesting would just be less fun for the serious guys without packet (albeit indirectly). Ban packet completely? I doubt it. Packet is healthy for the contest as a whole.

As others have clearly and sometimes eloquently pointed out, packet usage inhibits (or worst case, prevents) the attainment of contesting skill. If packet were only a crutch, it might not be that bad. But too many potentially great contesters/operators and dumbed-down of their own accord by failure to grow beyond packet-reliance; what a shame. If contest clubs would focus more on the skill level of their membership in the long-term and less on the "how big a score can we get today" mentality, I, for one, would be happier with the results.

Ethics - well.what an interesting topic and certainly directly related to cheating. Unfortunately, I have to completely disagree with one portion of "the other Doug's" recent posting. I don't think that cheaters give a damn about being caught and/or about being potentially embarrassed. More often than not (just my guess.sorry to be rhetorical), cheaters will just search for another methodology of cheating. To them, they are not cheating.they are "exploring the boundaries of the contesting rules - pushing the envelope."

What drives one to this stance is not a topic that I care to explore here. In certain regions of the world, one is considered an idiot if they chose not to "push the envelope." I am still in shock about the group who said they were legal, despite having multiple stations all over the entire country, because all the stations were connected by GOVERNMENT OWNED STREETS, and they were, therefore, all contiguous and under single-entity ownership. I don't know about you, but for me, that exemplifies the cheater mindset. Yet, they confidently stated that they had complied with the letter of the rules. I understand that their perspective was corrected.

Certain contest expeditions ask potential operators if they, "have a problem with high power." Well, gee whiz, I sure do. But how many guys agree to operate there anyway? What does this tell the station owner/operator? Those who do so are thoroughly complicit in rules violation, yet bask in the glow of a high score. [DG - what guilt did these guys have? None.] Others, when confronted with a similar situation of which they had not previous knowledge, may choose to operate there anyway but state, "There won't be a next time." Still the wrong message as actions speak louder than words.

Contest Sponsors and Contest Committees are not all-powerful, all knowing-deities. They NEED YOUR HELP! That does not simply mean "turn the guy in," it means that you should take a stand - make your position known then and there and in a direct manner. I know one local in NJ who is not the world's greatest contester, maybe not even 2nd tier, but when confronted with a group that wanted to run soup (high power), he turned them down. THAT's what we need! THAT's what you need to do.

Keep up the good work, Dave! I hope you spawn some (many) followers.