[CQ-Contest] cqww cw spotting report

[David Gilbert]

I realize your proposal is well-intentioned, but I just have to speak up 
here.  Not only do I think it is extremely unworkable due to it's 
complexity and bureaucratic nature, I think it would be prone to far 
more abuse than individual hams who speak up with evidence of cheating.  
A whistle-blowing individual would be subject to public scrutiny himself 
(as Dave has been) and either supported (as Dave has predominantly been) 
or refuted, but an organized and even paid group of contest cops is 
almost guaranteed to develop Inquisition-like tendencies.  It is, 
unfortunately, human nature and it happens all the time ... homeowners' 
associations anyone??

When individual hams voluntarily step forward and discuss bad behavior, 
that's democracy.  When hams cede that responsibility and authority to a 
select group (other than the contest organizers), that's fascism.  We 
don't need a police department to address cheating ... we just need 
contesters who stop looking the other way when they know something is wrong.

73,
Dave   AB7E



Michael Coslo wrote:
> Hans has an excellent point  re public Hanging's. Any private  
> individual who takes on the job of "Contest Cop" will eventually come  
> under scrutiny him/herself. That's human nature. Other problems  
> include the individual is just that, an individual. Dave might be  
> performing a service, but he won't be around forever. And if he were  
> to decide to stop , then who would take over the responsibility?
>
> If there is a systemic problem - and before I go much further, I'm not  
> really convinced that there is a cheater behind every tree - we need  
> to attack the problem in an organized fashion.
>
> Here is an actual workable proposal:
>
> FIrst thing that is needed is an organization. For the sake of  
> discussion, let's call it the CEG - Acronym for Contest Ethics group.
>
> The CEG will need to do the following:
>
> 1. Determine what constitutes cheating - Sounds easy but isn't. Is  
> 5.000001 watts at QRP cheating?
>
> 2. Determine punishments and methods of enforcement - A miscreant in  
> one contest would be punished equitably across all CEG associated  
> contests.
>
> Here is where we come to that thorny public versus private thing. I  
> would postulate that if an organization were formed, the need to  
> perform a public lynching. There is a voyeuristic element to the whole  
> public outing issue anyway. Do we want the problem to go away, or do  
> we want the thrill of watching someone "get theirs". If public outing  
> is the decided upon mode of operation, get plenty of liability  
> insurance. Mistakes can be made.
>
> The organization aspect of the punishment is a protection for those  
> who do the work. Those who would cheat might very well be those who  
> would seek retaliation against private individuals. Seems ridiculous  
> that would happen in contesting, but remember the incident in Texas a  
> few years ago when a Mother tried to have one of her daughter's  
> adversaries killed in order for her daughter to get on the High school  
> cheerleading team.
>
> 3. Determine monitoring methods.
>
> 4. Determine exactly WHO is monitoring - This is a troublesome one,  
> because the monitors need to be interested in "cleaning up Dodge  
> City", but to participate in contesting itself while functioning as a  
> contest cop would be a serious conflict of interest. Perhaps the  
> monitors/enforcers  could be active contesters who take a multi year  
> leave of absence from contesting.
>
> 5. Come up with a methodology for reporting cheaters to the respective  
> contests. The offense, the punishment. This will allow sponsors to  
> have a list, similar to the "bad check" lists" at retail stores.  
> Punishments reported to sponsors are the minimum punishments for the  
> offense. Contest sponsors are allowed to enact additional punishments  
> as they see fit.
>
> 6. Contesters would need to buy-in - contesters should be willing to  
> support the CEG. Dues, and some sort of membership requirements and  
> certificate would be applicable.
>
> 7. Contest sponsor buy-in - This part is tricky. The CEG organization  
> would need to have a way of both working cooperatively with the  
> contest sponsor, yet have some leverage to be effective. The sponsor  
> would need to have autonomy over it's rules. You're not there to say  
> how they run the contest, your there to help out with ethical issues.
>
> 8. Here's the tricky part, but one I think is crucial. Members of the  
> CEG would need to elect which contests they participate in. And the  
> members would be suggested to participate only in CEG associated  
> contests.
>
> 9. Eventually, if popular  enough, almost all contests will be brought  
> into line and operate in association with the CEG.
>
> All of the usual issues of forming an organization will apply.  
> Articles of incorporation, bylaws, rules writing, election of  
> officers, that sort of thing.
>
> Okay - there ya go. An outline, a plan of attack, and a workable  
> solution. There are some issues - there always are, but this method  
> will allow cheaters to be punished across many if not all contests.
>
> Now all that is needed is to see if there are people out there who  
> will take up the task, or if they would rather just complain.
>
>
> -73 de Mike N3LI -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>