[CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs

w1md at cfl.rr.com w1md at cfl.rr.com
Sun Feb 1 22:50:24 EST 2009

God help us all if we don't get some sunspots soon!!! ~8-}

If the rules (that you put your signature to on the contest submission form) say that by agreeing to them your log will be available for public review bother you...then DO NOT SEND YOUR LOG IN. Otherwise...move along...nothing more to see here.


---- Mike Coslo <mjc5 at psu.edu> wrote: 
> Barry Merrill wrote:
> > Failing to submit your log is a gross injustice to the
> > real competitors, especially those who are seeking a
> > berth at the next WRTC.
> Respectfully, another option is to not work the contest at all. 
> Presumably that wouldn't be so good either.
> > Without your log, any station that mis-logged your call,
> > or zone, or band, etc., will have unfortunately and 
> > unfaily received UN-DESERVED QSO points and a MULTPLIER.
> Point of reference. In the contest I adjudicate, looking at the logs, 
> about twice as many people do some operation as send in logs.
> Give it up. Unless you plan on making up some sort of list to "shun" 
> those who don't send in logs, anyone can operate in a contest, and there 
> is no way you can stop them.
> > Your self-centered, myopic, undefined fear of a violation 
> > of your personal privacy, by making your operator's contacts
> > public, especially when you didn't even make those contacts,
> > could have caused a real winner to lose.
> Yes, in some cases you are correct. But your above attack is a little 
> harsh, The Ops at Dave's station have no doubt agreed to his actions, 
> unless you doubt his veracity when he said as much.
> But that might just be the price you pay. If you just have to have those 
> logs published, some people might just not like that. They might use the 
> airwaves as is their complete right. They might not submit the logs, as 
> is their right.
> > Your actions DO have significant negative impact on other hams.
> And we have seen right here that there are Hams who have already assumed 
> that something is amiss in the operations. It is not possible to 
> (credibly) deny that the main reason that logs are published is for 
> people to examine them for cheating. If a Ham doesn't play by the rules, 
> they are assumed guilty of cheating
> Any other reason - strategy studies for instance - is time less well 
> spent than spending it in good old chair time.
> I have to repeat it, y'all just can't have it both ways. Rules that are 
> philosophically repugnant to some people are just that. Don't be angry 
> if they don't accept what they find repugnant.
> The truly sad part of this is that there are much better ways to find 
> cheaters. Too many want a vigilante force, and scarlet letters. Instead, 
> we'll just continue to argue the old open log question.
> Are open logs going to find people who are running too much power?
> Are open logs going to find multiple Ops at a single op station?
> 	(save for some dummies who seem to mysteriously be able to operate on 
> two frequencies at the same time, or come up with an insane rate)
> Spotting? That might be a use for people to scrutinize, there can be 
> some correlations, but ya gotta be careful. I've seen some amazing 
> things in log checking. Given the number of QSO's in a contest, it will 
> be like poker - sometimes there are royal flushes, sometimes there are a 
> pair of deuces.
> But your anger is just part of the reason why people have a problem with 
> the "open log" issue. It has come to the point where those who oppose it 
> are assumed to be cheating, or at the very least, trying to hide something.
> And people who do think that there is no other reason, are creating a 
> big problem that can undermine their good intentions.
> 	- 73 de Mike N3LI -
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list