[CQ-Contest] Fw: [RRDXA] E73M - I have cheated

[Kostas Stamatis]

I agree in many points with Christian.
Beside this the contest commitee must show its power. K1TTT makes a report 
after major contest. How many of them were punished? Noone. But if we don't 
punish for what is sure (self spotting) is ever possible to punish for some 
watts more? Did you see Russians results some days ago. Do you think that 
their contest popularity is random? Do you think that everyone contester is 
honest like the most Americans are? Probably the 99% of Americans contesters 
are honest. But it is not the same when we speak for Italians, Greeks, 
Russians, etc. So we will continue to measure them with American weights nad 
measures? If we can not have control over qrp/low/high power categories, 
it's better not to have these categories at all. I believe there are ways to 
prevent this. The most important is every contest organiser to show his 
power to contesters as Russians, Slovenians and possibly others do. Ask SCC 
commitee to check logs of Cqww. I am sure that they will do, even i don't 
know them. I am also sure that over 10% of the stations will be 
disqualified. Why cq or arrl doesn't make the same. Because of their public 
relations? I wish it is not the truth. Finally the point is : do we want to 
catch the cheaters or not?
73 Kostas sv1dpi


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christian Schneider" <prickler.schneider at t-online.de>
To: "'Don Field'" <don.field at gmail.com>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fw: [RRDXA] E73M - I have cheated


> G3XTT wrote
> "That said, it's a pity if anyone stops participating because they feel 
> the
> organisers are not coming down hard on such cheats. It comes down to why 
> you
> participate in the first place. Is it purely to win?"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Don for being the first who dares to answer. But one point about 
> the
> "winning"-motive. We don´t talk about "activity weekends" but by name 
> about
> "contests" = competition/comparison. It is not a championship to get one
> winner only but to have competition for all. In real sports the majority 
> of
> participants are real competitors, on their individual level - or why do
> runners sprint between rank 45 and 46 far away from being winners? So I
> somewhat don´t like that - mainly biggun - argument "simply participate 
> and
> have fun", somewhat neglecting the "small pistols" as competitors. Would 
> you
> expect a football team ranking in the middle of the league to play in "fun
> mode" when they host the top team of the league - sporting fairness 
> forbid.
> But by ham-contesting arguments we would advise the team to "simply have
> fun" and take it easy as they have no chance to win.
>
> Regarding power I see not much cure as it may be difficult for organizers 
> to
> make a DQ based on hardware description and RBN-values. So not the
> organizers are to be blamed when more and more people loose more and more
> motivation for contesting (as I do, too). Quite a few developments let 
> some
> things look like a travesty of contesting and we may not be too far in
> credebility from professional cycling. But that is of course individual
> perception and "new blood" not prevented.
>
> And fun to be had is not prevented, too, especially in the really fine
> IOTA-contest.
>
> 73, Chris
>
> (www.dl8mbs.de)
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>