w5ov at w5ov.com
w5ov at w5ov.com
Wed Jul 18 09:09:44 PDT 2012
I would have to disagree on this and support KR2Q's suggestion.
This forum is the appropriate peer group - we're nearly 100% amateur radio
In contrast, publishing the callsign of these scoundrels in a letter to
the editor of QST might be correctly considered a public forum, but this
email list is not.
Name names (callsigns), I say!
> I wouldn't be inclined to identify the station publicly (this time) but
> rather submit my evidence to the sponsor of the contest.
> "Peer pressure" and "public humiliation" are not synonymous terms.
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> On Jul 18, 2012, at 5:34 AM, kr2q at optimum.net wrote:
>> Well, in every aspect of life, there have been, are, and always will be
>> Two big elements (historically) that motivate cheating are (a) others do
>> it so I need to
>> cheat as well in order to maintain a level playing field (HA!) and (b)
>> What is the risk of getting
>> For ham radio events, there is a subset of (b)....if I get caught, will
>> the contest sponsor
>> actually take any action?
>> As we all know, there are some contests where "nobody ever gets DQed."
>> Maybe one of "those"
>> has very recently changed for a single entrant. A move in the right
>> Many decades ago (and definitely NOT the case today or even recently),
>> the WPX contest was
>> simply a joke in terms of log checking. The claimed score always = final
>> score. At the time,
>> when questioned about the lack of checking, the reply was, "This isn't
>> that kind of contest."
>> Really? Clearly, that wrong attitude was fixed ages ago now.
>> So in consideration of "I wish they would do the right thing," that
>> really depends in great
>> part on the sponsor taking action.
>> Also, I get your point, but I would say that 99.9% honesty is a bit
>> optimistic. In a contest
>> with, say, 7000 log entries, do you really think there are only 7 guys
>> breaking the rules? Or
>> maybe you distinguish between "breaking the rules" and intentional
>> Finally, at least for me, a big part of honesty and integrity and peer
>> pressure. I don't know
>> why you have not listed the callsign of this station. I think it would
>> do tremendous good.
>> Hopefully, if they don't "fall on their sword," after your admonition,
>> you will then feel
>> compelled to reveal their identify. I'm sure someone has an SDR
>> recording of the contest
>> that would clearly demonstrate two signals at once.
>> Thanks for bringing this to light! We need more of the same from
>> de Doug KR2Q
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest