[CQ-Contest] Driving at 4AM

Michael Coslo mjc5 at psu.edu
Mon Feb 9 12:56:32 EST 2009

On Feb 9, 2009, at 11:09 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:

> 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.

I respectfully disagree, Mike. In Tree's original post of February 3,  
in the parent thread - "Log Checking and Deadlines", he wrote:

Start Tree quote

> One of the frustrating things I have experienced working as a log  
> checker
> for a number of contests is how late some of the competitive logs are
> submitted.
> There are always some logs - and typically that are from the same  
> guys -
> that show up very close to the end of the log checking deadline.  Of
> course, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to name names...  but they  
> know
> who they are.

End Tree quote.

> There should probably be separate discussions of various sub plots  
> that came
> out of this like:
> Should log deadlines be moved up
> Should logs be accepted after the deadline and qualify for  
> placement, i.e.
> not checklog.
> Should sponsors publish the date the log was received

Those are surely better subjects.

1. Should log deadlines be moved up?

It doesn't matter too much to me. There will still be people sending  
in logs at the deadline - just more of them. This really doesn't  
accomplish much.

2. Should logs be accepted after the deadline and qualify?

If there is a good enough reason. Good enough reasons are specific to  
what the sponsor says are good enough.

3. Should sponsors publish the date the log was received?

This wouldn't accomplish anything, unless one wants to wag fingers at  
the so called cheaters who submit their logs later in the process.  
Just as a point of reference, I installed a logs received webpage for  
PAQSO. It didn't exist before, so people had a way to see that their  
log and summary came through. A good and to me much needed step. But  
everything that is added has a cost in effort. Between populating the  
pages and clarifying issues, that is a significant amount of labor. So  
I'm going to turn a jaundiced eye toward anything that causes me extra  
labor if it doesn't accomplish much.

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

But this is a problem too. If every objection is met with the old "if  
you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry  
about", it even casts the shadow of impropriety on anyone who would  
dare to disagree.

>  Those
> that cheat will continue to do so, however I think we need to be  
> diligent
> and attempting to identify and stop cheaters.

Sure. Below I even have a suggestion.

> What I find amusing is that Power has been overlooked and passed off  
> with a
> wink wink for as long as I can recall and that is a violation of our
> license.  Log massaging, rubber clocking, packet, skimmer, etc is  
> not and
> gets far more attention.

Power - and not just illegal power, is one of those things that is so  
hard to determine. A QRP station with a good antenna can have a signal  
as good or better than a lo power station, and I've had some stations  
in NEQP some years ago have great difficulty believing I was not  
running power.

The things that we have trouble doing anything about are likely the  
most abused portions of the rules.

Require sealed Xcievers maybe?

If Contesters are serious about stopping cheating, they might want to  
take some of the responsibility upon themselves instead of coming up  
with more ineffective ways for sponsors to shoulder the task. Self  
policing is the watchword. Gather evidence, submit it discreetly, and  
keep after it.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list