[CQ-Contest] Driving at 4AM

W0MU Mike Fatchett w0mu at w0mu.com
Mon Feb 9 12:30:37 EST 2009

Hi all,
I have some specific responses to Mike's question below:
> From: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu at w0mu.com>
> Date: 2009/02/09 Mon AM 10:09:01 CST
> To: "'Michael Coslo'" <mjc5 at psu.edu>, 
> 	"'CQ-Contest com'" <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Driving at 4AM
> And this entire conversation started with comments about a number of 
> perennial top finishers sending in late, yes LATE logs.  Not logs at 
> the deadline, past the deadline.
> There should probably be separate discussions of various sub plots 
> that came out of this like:
> Should log deadlines be moved up

>>No. Sponsors want to receive as many logs as they can, from hard-core
contesters AND casual >>contesters alike.  Contests don't exist for
contesters alone.

Huh?  Contests exist for the competition.  Non contesters join in to have
fun, work new countries, counties, states, whatever.  The very casual op who
is not into contesting probably does not submit a log nor do they care who
wins.  I give out lots of contacts in contests that I don't submit logs for.

What is the percent of log received in comparison to all that participated?

> Should logs be accepted after the deadline and qualify for placement, i.e.
> not checklog. 

>>Yes, to whatever extent the sponsor is willing to accommodate. It's not up
to us to dictate to >>sponsors how to run their contests.

No it is not our place to dictate,  but the rules are driven by the
competitors and the those running the contests do ask for input and watch
this list.  Why have rules if exceptions are easily made or they are not
applied equally.

> Should sponsors publish the date the log was received

>>No. As has been pointed out, this information is entirely irrelevant.
Since so many of you are >>so willing to attach automatic suspicion to a
later log filing, as entirely groundless as that >>suspicion may be, I see
no need to fan the flames of paranoia any further.

Here we disagree.  Once again if you have done nothing wrong it is no big
deal.  Maybe those of us that read the rules and abided by them would like
some explanation why W1AAAAA has been able to submit his log late every time
he enters.

> If you are not cheating, I see no reason to get up in arms about it.

>>So, if you aren't breaking the law, you have no reason to get up in arms
about unreasonable
>>search and seizure?

Unreasonable search and seizure is against the law here.  What are you
saying?  If you don't want your log examined then don't send it.  Pretty
simple.  By sending in the log you agree to whatever terms the sponsor sets

>>To quote one of Mike, W0MU's favourite orators -- given his signature --
"Those who sacrifice >>liberty for security deserve neither."

What liberties are we giving up by getting logs in by a published rule
deadline, moving up a deadline or having the date we submitted a log
published?  None.

So I guess if the sponsors of contests make changes like this it is ok but
we just can't talk about it?

I would even go a step further and would entertain opening up the log check
reports to the public as well.  

>>If this really was going to curb cheating -- and I'm not convinced
cheating is widespread
>>enough to warrant -- I might feel a bit better about it. But as has been
pointed out, cheaters 
>>will cheat irrespective of log deadlines. They'll just make sure to cheat
more quickly. So all 
>>that will happen here is to bring contesting further into disrepute.

I am not sure the discussion started to curb cheating, but cheating sure
seems to be on the top of some peoples lists.

>>73, kelly

I guess we won't discuss power either... Wink.

Heck just operate, have a good time and everyone will get a fancy
participation award, everyone wins, no log checking, no worries about
cheating, heck just submit a form that you participated no need for logs


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list