[CQ-Contest] This IS cheating, right?

Tonno Vahk tonno.vahk at gmail.com
Sun Feb 23 15:29:18 EST 2014

And what part of the CQ160 Rules did this guy really break?

"obviously a cheat"? Are you crazy, guys? There comes another witch hunt.
People not IDing as often as we like - A Cheat, people using cut numbers - A
Cheat. Now people logging QSOs that they think happened - A Cheat!? 

No one QSO on our crowded and noisy contest bands is 100% sure ever. There
is always a risk of somebody getting something wrong. There is always
element of guessing and making the best guesses based on information
available from legal databases and our brain. It could not matter less if
the guy in question pulled out the name and state from his brain or
database. He thought he got the exchange while the other guy was actually
asking for repeat at a time. So he thought the QSO was OK and logged it.
Obviously it is very poor operating as in this case he gets a NIL plus
penalty and for his own sake he should have asked for confirmation again.
But even when doing that it would have been totally OK to ask that please
confirm your state being ME rather than just ask the state again. Nothing
wrong in using databases or brain, for god's sake. Logging a QSO is always a
risk and every one of us requires his own confidence level for that. And
this is totally fine.

Talking about guesswork all the RUN ops not confirming the caller is
actually calling them should be DQed as the QSO is not complete, the other
guy did not send the Runners call at all. How did they know for sure they
were called? Well, they don't.

I suggest you guys take a moment to read the rules and take a deep breath
before rushing to hang out those Cheater signs once again (as Chuck also
says that a lot of us are far too quick to pass judgments here). I bet most
people stepping up here have never read the particular contest rules at all.
There continues to be way too much whining and name calling on this
reflector and it really gets disgusting once in a while. 

Try to be more open-minded and tolerant for a while (while of course that
goes for me as well regarding tolerating those continuous witch hunts by the
same people over and over again, but enough is enough).


-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 5:07 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] This IS cheating, right?

Here's a thought...what if this guys was NOT in the contest, and is just a
guy handing out contacts?

Alot of "us" are far too quick pass judgement on "cheaters"....we have to
remember a hell of alot of QSO's come from casual operators, that either
dont know the rules, dont care, or dont turn a score in.

If he isn't entering a score, it isn't cheating. Period.

Now, if he is a contester...obviously a cheat.

73- Chuck KI9A 

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:40 AM, "Bob Naumann" <W5OV at W5OV.COM> wrote:
> Rick,
> While the guy you worked was obviously assisted, why would you reduce 
> *your* score to get back at him?
> I'd include your description of what happened with your log submittal 
> and let the contest sponsor sort it out.
> I'd wager that he's putting other given names in his log rather than 
> what was sent on the air.  They'll figure that out.
> There's talk about automatic DQ for people who do what you're 
> suggesting - i.e.; intentionally deleting a QSO from your log.
> While the other guy is sleazy for sure, what you're suggesting is not 
> much better and really only hurts your score.
> Don't do it.
> 73,
> Bob W5OV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf 
> Of Rick Lindquist, WW1ME
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:12 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] This IS cheating, right?
> Okay, conditions for the CQ 160 SSB have been extremely noisy for many 
> of us along the Eastern Seaboard. Operators have routinely been CQing 
> in the face of several callers, and few seem to be able to hear me, 
> although I did snag HK1NA and a guy in Iowa, so the antenna system still
works, such as it is.
> Anyway, I digress. A station came back to me, but I could not copy his 
> state among the static crashes, so I asked for a repeat. The op comes 
> back: "Okay, thanks, Eric, for Maine." Well, two problems here: (1) I 
> had not given him his report yet (and never did), and (2) I never use 
> my given name on or off the air - I go by "Rick." The logical 
> conclusion here is that he had his logger set to look up on the 
> Internet stations he was working, and he got my given name AND my exchange
info from a call sign database.
> I don't expect to log more than a few dozen Qs in this event, but his 
> will not be among the ones I submit, even though it was a needed mult.
> Rick, WW1ME
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list