[CQ-Contest] Recording your CQ WW CW contest

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

No.

Expecting me to buy an MP3 recorder or any similar device is totally
unreasonable.

Expecting me to rig up my computer or another computer to record my contest
activity is totally unreasonable.

And Scott, I'm sorry, but with all due respect to you as a contester, I find
the implication that it is neccesary for me to record my contest operating &
make it available extremely insulting and an affront to my personal
integrity.

I'm sorry that there are cheaters out there.  I'm also sorry that there are
lids out there.  Fortunately there aren't many of either.

To unfairly burden me and other contesters, to tell me that my signature on
my entry that certifies that I operated within the rules and that I've
entered my log as honestly and accurately as I could is not enough, all in
the vain hope of trying to catch a cheater is to drive me out of contesting.

-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:14:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Robbins <w4pa at yahoo.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Recording your CQ WW CW contest
To: cq-contest at contesting.com

K1TTT:
>Mid June sometimes I turn on 6m and find a contest going on, so I pass out
a
>few points.  Then it starts to rain and I stay on and play some on 2m and
>70cm.  I send a log in and get a certificate.  I didn't mean to, but I
>accidentally became a 'serious' entrant.  Should I be denied a certificate
>because I didn't record the whole contest?

Perhaps.  Just like you have to log, you have to record if you expect to
win.
It is not at all unreasonable.  What we're talking about here is a mindset
shift, not unlike when the contest community switched from paper logging to
computer based logging.  The next logical step in the digital age is
recording.


W4TV:
>So what?  WRTC is a limited event with a limited number of
>competing stations.  To require everyone who HOPES he might
>have a chance to win to record all 48 hours or to DENY anyone
>who might be lucky enough to surpass his own expectations
>and actually WIN the "title" because he didn't record all
>48 hours (or heaven forbid, had a recording failure) is
>asinine.

I would venture at the top end of SOABHP radio contesting, that you are
discussing a limited event with a limited number of stations as well.  There
are not 100 people vying for the top 10 in any category of any major
contest.
There are surely *100 entrants*, and I would say 95% or 98% of all of them
have
no reason to record themselves operating the contest.

Recording should be right up there with logging.  If you didn't log it, you
didn't work it.  If you didn't record it, you didn't work it.  Very simple.

>Contest sponsors and log checkers can properly review the logs
>of the top stations without either recordings or making the
>logs public.  If they can't they might as well cancel the
>whole contest because they don't have any business sponsoring
>the event.

That is apparently incorrect on its face.  Because if contest sponsors and
log
checkers COULD properly review the logs without recordings and determine who
is
legit and who is not, we wouldn't be having this discussion about cheating,
would we?

W0MU:
>So now I have to record an entire contest somehow and if by chance my hard
>drive crashes on the way back to the USA my score does not count....

That is correct.  Just like if you have no log, with no recording you have
no
entry.  Logs are backed up to floppies or by other means when operating the
contest, recordings can be as well.

UA9CDC:
>This is 21st century....  What tape you are talking about. Get yourself
>cheap MP3 player with line input and 1-2Gig of memory and you can easily
>record 48 hours 2 radio and get file transferred to you home PC for later
>use.

Like I said ... SIMPLE.

Scott Robbins, W4PA