[CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report

[Paul O'Kane]

From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com>
12th March

> .. Suppose they just want to have a good time so
> they spot themselves to generate some Q's? Are we
> right in calling them cheaters?
 
> Remember, perception is reality!

My perception is that they are cheating.  Therefore, 
according to David, my reality is they are cheating.

> Contest committees and adjudicators; I urge you to
> handle these issues privately, promptly and with 
> consequences, particularly for repeat offenders!

Should Madoff be dealt with in private?

> .. Dave K1TTT does a great job with his report, but
> there is really no reason to send these documents to
> the general contesting public,

It seems that David believes the general contesting
public should not be kept informed about matters of
general contesting interest?

From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com>
14th March

> .. who are we to tell them "do not operate in our
> contest unless you read and follow the rules" or
> even worse, try to publicly embarrass them for
> breaking the rules.

During the contest, and at the time K1TTT provides
his reports, we don't know whether "they" intend to
submit a log.  If they are embarassed into not
submitting an entry, so much the better. 

> Dave's reports are not proof positive or evidence
> of fact, they are merely circumstantial evidence.

They are evidence, nevertheless.  Those named have
the right of reply on this forum.

From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com>
14th March

> .. "The most spotted DX stations" is entertaining and
> of benefit to everyone. I think we all like to know
> which stations are reported most frequently.

> .. The third section labeled "Cheerleader report" is
> where we get into the areas I believe are harmful to
> ham radio and contesting.

On the contrary.  I believe it's entertaining and of
benefit to everyone.  I think we all like to know which
stations are reported most frequently.

> .. First, there is nothing I have read (perhaps I am
> wrong and missed something) that prevents friends from
> spotting friends on the cluster.

It's against the rules when done with the knowledge,
approval or agreement of the person being spotted.

> Therefore, if CT2HHM wants to spot his friend CT2GSN
> 46 times, it is within his right to do so.

It's not - it's against the spirit of contesting.

> So, what do we do? We call them cheerleaders in
> order to publicly embarrass them to the world.

Precisely - because it works.

> .. The self spotters report.  Why don't we call
> this the "Cheaters Report".

For the same reason the "Cheerleader Report" is
not called the Cheaters Report.  The name describes
the nature of the cheating.

> .. What if the guy spotting himself simply wants
> to increase his pileup, thus increasing his fun for
> the day or weekend?

It's abuse of the system.

> What if the person being spotted isn't doing the
> spotting at all? What if it were a competitor?
> WHAT? A competitor pretending to be me and making
> it look like I was self spotting? Is that even possible?

Sure it's possible - occasionally the wrong people get
convicted.  

> Some of these reports contain many "self spots"
> while others just a few. But we embarrass them equally.

Yes, it's called consistency.

> .. The date and the time of each spot is missing!
> Why are these pieces of information excluded from the
> report?

It's a summary report - we know the dates of the contest,
and the time doesn't matter.  They're probably on DX
Summit if anyone really needs them.

> .. Seems to me, if people want to cheat, they'll cheat. 

Nothing new there - we will catch some of them.  The
fact that we may not catch them all is no reason to
stop trying.

> What are we doing to catch the power cheaters?

A separate issue.

> Is it fair to single out and publicly ridicule ONLY
> the spotters or those that we now have access to the
> logs?

"Fairness" is not the issue.  We use the resources we
have.

> What's next? Remote power monitors?

I hope so.

> .. Where does our paranoia end?

I think I know where it starts.

> .. In my opinion, the packet cluster in conjunction
> with, the current rules lends itself to cheating.
> It's a cesspool of trouble.

Agreed.

> Want to stop packet cluster cheating? Change the rules!

Another option, as David suggests, might be to stop
packet cluster :-)

> .. Who cares if someone in ON spots themselves?

I do.

> It has little to no impact on the contest and we
> all know it.

Do we?  It may influence the European results.

73,
Paul EI5DI