[CQ-Contest] Fwd: Re: CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory

David Gilbert xdavid at cis-broadband.com
Tue Dec 8 14:33:49 EST 2015

I consider myself at least as ethical as you or anyone else in this 
hobby, as many of my previous posts should illustrate. Here's the 
difference between our two interpretations of this situation:

CR3L /did not lie/.  They were fully qualified for both M/2 and M/M.  
They presumably didn't cheat during their operations and qualified for 
both categories.

What they DID do was /change their mind/, and that is completely 
acceptable by the contest rules ... which allow you to change your entry 
right up until the last moment.  I can change my mind at any point up 
until the deadline to enter SOSB20LP or SOABLP or SOABHP if I operated 
honestly for SOSB20LP.   That is all that CR3L did, albeit with 
knowledge of the scores and intended category of other stations that 
freely offered that information.


Regarding my comment on dishonest postings to 3830, I thought I was 
perfectly clear that it was ... well, dishonest.  I merely pointed out 
that such chicanery had nothing to do with the official entry.  I would 
have a very dim view of CR3L originally submitting to the contest 
sponsor as M/S and then changing it to a category they actually 
qualified for at the last moment, but that would be because they claimed 
something they weren't qualified for.  Unless they could convince me 
that it was due to an honest mistake I'd probably consider them for a DQ.

But that isn't what happened.  CR3L had every right ... morally, 
ethically, legally ... to enter any category they actually qualified for 
right up until the deadline.  Changing your mind (for whatever reason) 
based upon publicly available information isn't unethical.  If I'm in a 
foot race that has a common starting point and both a five mile and a 
ten mile category, and I see all my key competitors stopping at the five 
mile point, I'm not going to feel guilty about continuing on to the ten 
mile line even if I originally planned to only run five miles.

Not everything we don't like or feel comfortable with is a moral issue.

Dave   AB7E

On 12/8/2015 5:06 AM, Kevan Nason wrote:
> Dave (AB7E)
> “They posted to 3830 and had to choose one at that point, but they had 
> the option to choose either category right up until the official 
> contest submission deadline… Seriously ... please explain objectively 
> how this represents an ethical violation of any sort.”
> Defining the group ethics appears to be what this thread is attempting 
> to do – which is independent of the rules. Since the group doesn’t 
> seem to have a consensus of opinion there is no way justify my opinion 
> ethically.  I can give you my moral viewpoint though.
> (The following is debate and not criticism. Caveat is because so many 
> take offense at these things.)
> It starts with an individual’s moral value system. I respect, but 
> don’t share yours. Others share yours and may or may not respect mine. 
> So be it.
> No one seemed to bat an eye when you earlier wrote: “They didn't even 
> have to be honest in their 3830 posting since it has nothing to do 
> with their official entry”. You also wrote: “You wouldn't even have 
> known what their operation looked like at all if they hadn't posted to 
> 3830, which is a venue totally separate from their official entry.” My 
> personal value system is the apparently anachronistic viewpoint that 
> honesty matters – in all venues.  Particularly since there have been 
> many previous discussions about how we rely on our competitors 
> integrity in reporting their contest scores – are you ready for it?... 
> honestly.
> If someone tells me in one format that they are M2 and then later 
> officially enters as MM, I view that as lying. Apparently you (and 
> others) don’t. And even if you/they do view it as lying, doing that is 
> still okay since neither lying nor declaring your category in 3830 is 
> addressed in the rules.  (A follow on but important related point is 
> that since it is viewed as lying then that person or groups integrity 
> is challenged and people will naturally consider more seriously 
> whether or not that person or groups effort was legitimate in the all 
> other aspects of the contest(s).)
> Changing category also seems in indicative of a "sore loser" mentality 
> and we contesters don't like to think or our group being populated by 
> "those types of people." We supposedly display good sportsmanship and 
> respect our peers.
> In summary, my value system views the following as being morally 
> unacceptable. False statements followed by a last minute change to a 
> different entry class simply because it became apparent you couldn't 
> win the one you originally intended to enter, but could a different 
> category. Particularly when that change is for your own personal gain 
> and results in someone who otherwise would have had a 1^st place 
> losing that prize.
> The bit about "what if K1ABC (John Doe) decided to fire up the amp in 
> the middle of the contest" doesn't fly. They made the 3830 declaration 
> early on and later changed it.
> I would like to see the group’s ethics in line with my morals. You 
> naturally want it in line with your value system. Since our community 
> is worldwide with so many different cultures and viewpoints I suspect 
> this isn’t going to be solved to everyone’s satisfaction though. Not 
> even by compromise. We will always have people gaming the system 
> and/or cheating. You can’t write enough rules to prevent gaming and it 
> is unfortunately the nature of some to cheat.
> Kevan
> N4XL
> (not naive, just idealistic)
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:55 PM, David Gilbert 
> <xdavid at cis-broadband.com <mailto:xdavid at cis-broadband.com>> wrote:
>     As long as they legitimately qualified for more than one category
>     I can't see a single ethical problem with them choosing which one
>     they want to declare for within the window that the contest
>     sponsor allows.  Please tell me how doing so is a problem of
>     ethics. Seriously ... please explain objectively how this
>     represents an ethical violation of any sort.
>     Please remember that I'm one of the few that thinks using SCP and
>     Call History files are at least a little bit inappropriate
>     (although not illegal, of course) for unassisted operation, and I
>     deplore the way the M/S and M/2 categories have been stretched
>     beyond all recognition by some very large and intricately equipped
>     stations. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my perception
>     of what is ethical and what isn't.
>     Dave   AB7E

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list