[CQ-Contest] Technology against cheating?

[David Gilbert]

That's all well and good for you personally, but that's an irrelevant 
position in general.  Clearly there has been some significant cheating 
at high levels of ham radio contesting.  While that doesn't personally 
affect me (or apparently you) in the least, it does affect the contest 
sponsors (who have their own credibility to maintain) and any 
participant who puts forth serious effort and currency toward a high 
score.  Exactly what would you have the sponsors do to address the 
situation?  Check one below:

a.  ignore it

b.  publicly plead for everyone to be honest

c.  publicly accuse anyone suspected of cheating, even without firm evidence

d.  privately DQ anyone strongly suspected of cheating

e.  incorporate tighter rules and enlist technology to enforce them


Sniping from the sidelines and spouting moral platitudes isn't, or at 
least shouldn't be, one of the options.

Dave   AB7E




On 3/21/2011 1:57 PM, vk4ti at yahoo.com wrote:
> This is really over board - 
> As opposed to most competitions, in Radio Contesting, we rely on the Insurance adage of "utmost good faith" 
> We do get disappointed when that is not displayed but we need to get on with it or find another hobby - its all part of the regime..Technology while available is not always the answer to all questions..
> As part of the disclosure regime - Last weekend we installed a ROTATOR ! 
> Apparently no longer will we have to go out in the dark avoiding snakes and sleeping Kangaroos to pull on the ropes to move the Yagis to new positions. This piece of technology will save us many hours in a contest and accordingly I need to let everyone know as its not a radio or an antenna - !! 
> Next weekend in the WPX from our station in the bush (VK4KW) we will get on air and have fun -competing against our best results and ignoring the innuendo's that seem to plague other contest stations - we only had internet installed late last year..
> See you all in the WPX from down under 
> Trent VK4TI 
>
>
> --- On Tue, 22/3/11, Gerry Treas,  K8GT<k8gt at mi.rr.com>  wrote:
>
> From: Gerry Treas,  K8GT<k8gt at mi.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Technology against cheating?
> To: "burbidge terence"<terryburbidge at blueyonder.co.uk>, somata90924 at mypacks.net, cq-contest at contesting.com
> Received: Tuesday, 22 March, 2011, 2:01 AM
>
> Ahhh, but do you notice how many people DO stop at a stop sign?  Of course not.  The human brain is wired to notice exceptions, not the commonplace.  Then, of course, we apply the exception as if it is the rule.
>
> Most people do abide by the rules, but who notices them?
>
> Sounds like the first caveman after we came out of the trees, "grumble. . .don't know why we have to live in a cave, the trees were plenty good for our ancestors.  Changes. . whole world is going to the dogs, if you ask me. . ."
>
> Thanks for claiming that I'm not honest.
>
> 73, Gerry, K8GT
>
>
>
>
> ---- somata90924 at mypacks.net wrote:
>
> =============
> if people would be HONEST WE WOULD not have to be bothered by all this,,skimmers,,internet, cheaters, SPOTS,,,,,bahhhhhh humbug.  Guess we have lost that as a society, ever watch how many people never STOP at a STOP SIGN?
>
> joe w6vnr/zf2ah
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: burbidge terence<terryburbidge at blueyonder.co.uk>
>> Sent: Mar 18, 2011 7:21 AM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Technology against cheating?
>>
>> <<I would describe recordings, whether of a whole
>> band or from individual stations, as technology
>> which inherently inhibits cheating, in contrast
>> to some other technologies which facilitate
>> cheating.>>
>> Great idea. Perhaps we could employ a firm of forensic experts to replay and
>> report on the recordings? Even simpler, let's set up a 'Star Chamber' of
>> distinguished contesters to investigate. Not just cheating but also
>> behaviour. For example, start/stop the clock when an SO2R/VFO leaves his run
>> frequency to make Q elsewhere and someone like me jumps in and steals it.
>>
>> Maybe take the Star Chamber findings to the International Court, complete
>> with the 'usual suspects' who could then be interrogated and eventually
>> tried for their offences.
>>
>> For goodness sake!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Terry
>> G4MKP
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>