Gerry Treas, K8GT
k8gt at mi.rr.com
Thu Jul 19 13:29:33 PDT 2012
Not by itself. It would have to be compared to the submitted log, station worked, time, frequency.
Then, that would make it damning evidence. Otherwise, there's now way to prove that just hearing a callsign, that it was actually that station. There are people around that would like to play pranks and discredit a big multi-op.
Due diligence in an investigation with integrity.
73, Gerry, K8GT
---- Jimk8mr at aol.com wrote:
If SDR recordings, or other means, prove the multiple signals operation,
would that be appropriate grounds for disqualification?
If so, would that disqualification disqualify the operators from WRTC 2014
73 - Jim K8MR
In a message dated 7/18/2012 2:34:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
w5ov at w5ov.com writes:
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
More information about the CQ-Contest