[CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters

[Paul J. Piercey]

All good points, Mike.

If a driver gets DQed in NASCAR, everyone knows why. Restrictor plate, too
much spoiler, car too light, whatever... it all comes out. That  should be
the case here too.

In fairness to said operator, the log posted by CQ does indicate the "SOAB
HP Assisted" category. The 3830 posting does not but 3830 is not the
governing body of the contest so that has no relevance.

There seems to be a lot of speculation but no definitive answers and that is
the key point. Until the actual reasoning as to why the action was taken,
and why the allegations surfaced here in the past day or so, is brought out
for all to see, I don't think there can be any  meaningful dialogue on the
subject.

73 -- Paul VO1HE  



> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike 
> Fatchett W0MU
> Sent: December 10, 2007 02:38
> To: W7TMT; Untitled
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters
> 
> My question to CQ is why beat around the bush?  Why not make 
> the ubn report public?  Why not detail the infractions and 
> let the entire community in on what a few seem to be in the 
> loop about.
> 
> The station in question sure looks to have been watching packet spots.
> Jumping from 40m to 160 seemed a bit odd to me and then 80 to 
> 20 for double mults.
> 
> I never even noticed the DQ until now and I do get CQ.  
> Participants should not have to read between the lines.  Be 
> clear and to the point about what is going on.  What is the 
> purpose of the camouflage.
> 
> Mike W0MU
> 
> 
> On 12/9/07 6:46 PM, "W7TMT" <w7tmt at dayshaw.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters
> > 
> > Forgive my naiveté but, being a relative newbie to 
> contesting, I would 
> > like to know exactly what all this fuss is about.
> > Snip...
> > As I said, it is very confusing to read about rampant 
> cheating yet the 
> > only evidence offered seemingly shows an error at best or 
> stupidity at 
> > worst unless I've completely missed the boat (which is not 
> beyond the 
> > realm of possibilities).
> > Snip...
> > _________________
> > 
> > 
> > Recognizing that the CQ write-up doesn't go into the specifics 
> > regarding this specific DQ (however, there appears to have 
> been only 
> > one reported in the results) one must give some 
> consideration to the 
> > last paragraph of their DQ discussion where they wrote:
> > 
> > "If you want try to be at the top in any category, follow 
> the rules. 
> > Do not have another person help you if you are single 
> operator. Do not 
> > use two signals at once. Make sure that all your TXs and RXs are 
> > within station limitations."
> > 
> > Given how infrequently DQ's seem to occur one might draw some 
> > conclusion from their warning. It seems unlikely they would provide 
> > such specific warnings for things "not to do" unless they had some 
> > evidence that such behavior had occurred. That is just 
> reading between 
> > the lines of course but it seems to me that they selected 
> their words carefully and for a purpose.
> > In other words, they didn't just pick those examples of unethical 
> > behavior out-of-a-hat so to speak.
> > 
> > 73/Patrick
> > W7TMT
> >  
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>