[CQ-Contest] Station Inspections

[Hank Greeb]

David:

You're entitled to your opinion, I beg you to agree that I'm entitled to 
my opinion, and I'm sure the organizers of the contest are entitled to 
their opinion, and entitled to enforce it, whether you or I agree or 
disagree.  If the vast (or even 50% vast) majority of the participants 
boycott the event due to this rule, the organizers may decide it wasn't 
a wise move.  I personally doubt that it will affect the participation 
in any significant way.

Chomping on me, or even venting your vitriol at the general populace who 
reads this reflector won't hack it.

I shall now retreat to my hole and await the next barrage of flack.\

73 de n8xx Hg

david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com wrote:
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:02:55 -0500
> From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>
>
> "Shucks, anyone can be competitive if he/she spends upwards past $50,000 or more on a station, towers, etc., and practices his/her skill in various contests.
>
> Not to mention a quiet RF location, on a high hill or overlooking salt water."
>
>
> KY1V --> ABSOLUTELY TRUE
>
> "And, there's a big temptation in all cases to cheat."  
>
> KY1V --> ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE, I have never, nor have any of my guests ever <to my knowledge>, so much as thought about cheating. I/We do, however, often think about how nice it would be to get 3 points for North American QSO's instead of 2 points!!!
>
> "So why should hams complain if they are asked to have a monitor at their station during the operation to make sure they are abiding by the rules?"  
>
> KY1V --> No one would complain if they were "asked", but that's not the intent of the rule. The rules is clear...if "they" want to, and you don't allow "them" to, you're automatically DQ'd for x years. The rule is designed with the intent that only "known/suspected" cheaters would be asked, therefore, it is assumed they will not cooperate, thus the penalty clause for non cooperation.
>
> It's BS. Open logs are BS. If you want to see my logs, ask...perhaps I'll let you. If you want to watch me operate CQWW ask, perhaps I'll let you, but that's my choice, not the CQWW CC, the same people trying to beat me!
>
> Think about it...if "THEY" weren't "THEMSELVES" participants in the very same contest for which "THEY" intend to enforce "THEIR" silly catch the cheater rules, none of this would matter!
>
> Personally, I don't think there's that much cheating going on. Perhaps it is more likely that there are a lot of people that are paranoid, delusional and can't quite figure out why they are getting beat, so they conclude that everyone else must be cheating. 
>
> Then there are the control freaks....don't even get me started on them!
>
> As a "NON CHEATER", I do not advocate the use of home invasions to satisfy one amateur's need to observe another amateur win a contest fair and square. And, it is MOST CERTAIN, the suspected cheater will never cheat while the inspection is taking place!
>
> What a dumb rule!
>
> David ~ KY1V/6Y1V