[CQ-Contest] Technology against cheating?

vk4ti at yahoo.com vk4ti at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 21 16:52:03 PDT 2011

Hi David, 
There are several options the least of which is too make standards - 
I believe that all contests should have all logs in inside the first week and that paper logs should not be accepted. 
I believe that people who are known to cheat should be disqualified for up to 4 years to take into account a WRTC cycle.
I believe that the majority of people are honest and do all things in good faith
I am a contest sponsor in my own right and am a committee member of another and that is why I have followed this thread with interest and some dismay. I have contested since high school so that makes it 30 plus years..
My preferred solution is to drastically shorten the times of log submission and to ban known offenders - perhaps this could be an extension of all contests....that a list of cheats is published and they are disqualified from ALL contests. 
What I have troubles coming to grips with is a recent Multi Single that was DQd as it was obviously rubber clocking..this affected all members of the team EVEN though the offending party submitted the log the others were guilty by association. They had in fact returned to their homes and the log was submitted later...hardly fair..
Trent VK4TI 

--- On Tue, 22/3/11, David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com> wrote:

From: David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Technology against cheating?
To: vk4ti at yahoo.com, cq-contest at contesting.com
Received: Tuesday, 22 March, 2011, 9:44 AM



      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



      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
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!


CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com



More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list