[CQ-Contest] Self-spotting, arranged QSO's and the CQ 160 contest

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Actually I think it points out that there is no way to stop this. 
People can watch spots anonymously any time they want.

It points out that there are plenty of people out there the will 
bend/break any rule to better their scores.

There are plenty of people that think packet is fine to use single op 
regardless of the rules.

Just who's log do you trust?

Packet is one thing.  Do we just throw in the towel and allow packet 
because there is no way to police those using packet.  With all the 
traffic on spotting lately the cheaters I am sure have picked up on how 
we are tracking them and will alter their style accordingly.

Prearranged contacts are another.  It happened with a big Caribbean 
Multi where station were called on the telephone and schedules made.  I 
met the owner of the home where this occurred and he told me all about it.

Now we have chat rooms, and oodles of instant messenger programs, IRC 
chats etc.  Which only makes the arranging of contacts that much easier.

Once again I think it is time the contest sponsors take a hard stand and 
and those that are determined to be cheating given a long break from 
that or their contests.  IMHO.



N7MAL wrote:
> WOW I guess my first question is where does this end? Do we start monitoring 
> 2 meters, or telephone conversations, or even email/regular mail. Anyone who 
> is shocked by N2IC's posting is still living in the dark ages. This kind of 
> thing has been going on for many, many, years. It is just becoming more 
> noticeable with the advent/activity of the internet.
> The solutions, as I see it, are to put a 'minder' in each in station that is 
> participating in the contest. The next solution is one category for all 
> contests, in other words a HP free for all every contest.
> Now to be serious, the solution is to create an incentive not to bend the 
> rules and I will leave that up to minds much smarter than mine. It has 
> already been pointed out there are no rules against chatting in chat rooms 
> and there should not be. Instead of beating up and hammering we need to find 
> meaningful, positive, incentives. IMHO one of the first things and probably 
> the easiest thing is to eliminate the packet-cluster rules and 
> packet-cluster categories.(They are useless)
> I am sure there are many good ideas out there. We just need to approach this 
> problem from a positive point of view rather such a negative/destructive 
> point.
> Again just my -2cents worth.
> 73
> 
> 
> MAL
> N7MAL
> BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
> http://www.n7mal.com
> Everyone in the world is
> entitled to be burdened
> by my opinion
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest