[CQ-Contest] Is it time that the contest sponsors officiallyidentify SCP as "assisted?"

[ve4xt at mymts.net]

Doug's right. Unenforceability doesn't mean you can't spell out expected behaviour.

True integrity is behaving correctly even when you know you can't be caught. 

Would the people who subscribe to the theory about not adding unenforceable rules also argue for the elimination of all current unenforceable rules? Can you prove Joe and Jack didn't arrange their Q over the phone? Can you tell on the air Jim's Bird is miscalibrated and he's actually transmitting six watts instead of five? Or that for the last of those six dead hours in Bob's SS log he wasn't listening for the right time jump back in? 

In saying that, I offer no comment on whether SCP is, or should be, assistance. It's been part of the contesting fabric so long, why change it now when you let it slide for so long?

73, Kelly 
ve4xt 

Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 4, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Doug Renwick <ve5ra at sasktel.net> wrote:
> 
> Where does it end?  Existing rules.  How can you tell if I am running 1.5KW
> or 2KW; glancing at the cluster from time to time; using a code reader when
> the DX is running at 50wpm.  You can't! 
> If you're teaching contesters not to misbehave because they'll get caught,
> as opposed to because it's wrong, you're sending the wrong message.
> 
> Doug
> 
> I wasn't born in Saskatchewan, but I got here as soon as I could.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Hi Guys.
> 
> I think it does not make any sense at all to create new rules that cannot be
> enforced or controlled. 
> How would you know out of 6000+ Cabrillo logs who used SCP and not?
> 
> 73
> 
> Helmut
> 
> www.df7zs.de 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest