[CQ-Contest] Station Inspections

[Michael Coslo]

On Aug 13, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Steve Sacco NN4X wrote:

> So, since relying on "honesty and integrity" has proven to be
> insufficient, it's the threat of an inspection to keep people  
> playing by
> the rules, or else we just give up.

See that's the weird thing. People are caught cheating. They are  
DQ'ed. The system works.

So what do we do? In our reactionary dudgeon, we add some more rules,  
when in fact the old ones worked.

>
> I vote for the threat of inspections - I've seen too many amplifier
> reviews by contesters bragging over how much power (way over their
> country's legal limit) their amp was running in the contests.

Okay, now the question I would have is, How far does it do? If I say,  
I would agree to an inspection. But the CQ agent must sign a legal  
document holding myself and all my operators harmless against any  
liabilities incurred during the inspection. Also, they must sign  
another legal document accepting full responsibility for any equipment  
damaged in the course of the inspection. This isn't an unreasonable  
request. I sign that sort of thing fairly often.

If they refuse to sign the documents, does that then translate to me  
refusing a station inspection?


>
> Doubtless, if someone feels wronged, they can retain a cq-contest- 
> lawyer
> to represent them to the CQ Contest Committee and plead their  
> case.   :-)


Why? It's their contest and their rules. If people don't like the  
rules, they can do something else while the contest is going on.  
Despite the work and effort, it is a hobby. Some of us don't think  
that having a stranger come onto our property to go over our equipment  
because they think we are cheating is a good way to enjoy a hobby.  
Just sayin'.

-73 de Mike N3LI -