[CQ-Contest] Proposed rules changes

[Joe]

Exactly,
And Punish the guilty with a severe enough penalty that there IS an 
actual deterrent to stop anyone else from complementing to violate the 
rules.
Don't punish everyone for a few rule breakers.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 5/24/2015 1:28 PM, ve4xt at mymts.net wrote:
> A rule that requires anyone with a sniff of an award to record the entire contest, just to prove their innocence, would be like the court system requiring all citizens, innocent and otherwise, to wear body cameras at all times so that in the event of some future incident, the court may review the recording to prove innocence.
>
> Forcing the majority to waive their right to be presumed innocent because some operators may cheat is a perversion of most countries' bills of rights, which govern all aspects of life.
>
> Reasonable, in my view, is to attach the requirement of video recording, showing all computer screens, keyboards and radios, of those operators who have proven themselves to be dishonourable, as a condition for the lifting of any sanction. As pointed out by others, an audio recording only proves a QSO took place: it doesn't prove excess power, illegal use of assistance or the use of non-amateur means to solicit Qs.
>
> Nobody without cause should be required to prove innocence. You ARE innocent. It's up to the court, or contest adjudicators, to prove guilt.
>
> As I suggested, suspending presumption of innocence is reasonable for, as an example, TO7A, and perhaps everyone else on the latest DQ list. But not for everybody. Let's not begin contests assuming everyone is a liar, ok?
>
> 73, Kelly
> ve4xt
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On May 24, 2015, at 10:03 AM, "Ken Low" <kenke3x at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> N4XL wrote:
>>
>> "I will be changing my station to include that capability should I ever be fortunate enough to have a high enough score to attract their interest."
>>
>> I am not picking on Kevan with my reply - but I have been reading the reflector traffic in recent weeks and will simple use his post as a lead-in to make a few points.
>>
>> I really don't see what all the fuss is about.   In fair competitions like WRTC, everyone's operation is already recorded.   In major competitions like Russian DX it's already required to log frequencies of each QSO.  These are not new requirements.
>>
>> If you don't want to risk being requested to submit a recording, then don't cheat in the first place!
>>
>> The recent TO7A debate recently shed light into the effort and techniques the Contest Committee must undertake to root out cheating.   Do we want to clear up our sport or not?   If yes, let's make it easier for the cheaters to be caught.
>>
>> Here's an example.  I am operating SOAB Unassisted with SO2R.   I am running on 15.   I tune on 10 on Radio 2 and populate my band map with calls to work.   But I have a good run going on Radio 1 and I can't work the 10-meter stations yet, or I'll lose my run frequency.    After 20 minutes my run rate on 15 drops (or I get run off my run frequency).   I start clicking on my saved spots on 10.   Click/work, click/work, etc - they are all new Mults at one per minute.   If this log were analyzed, would it not look a bit suspicious?   All those new Mults in a row, with a crowded band, at 8-15 kHz intervals, jumping from one to another?  But what I did was completely legal.
>>
>> Now consider 'Competitor X', who also enters SOAB Unassisted, but he has Internet enabled in his shack.    He submits the exact same log as me, identical QSO pattern over the time frame just discussed.    But he did not find those 10-Meter Mults on his own.   He found them by clicking spots after he changed bands.
>>
>> Now picture yourself on the Contest Committee trying to find out who cheated and who did not.   You see both log sections above and identify the two identical QSO patterns as suspicious.   Wouldn't an audio recording, along with frequency information, be useful and definitive to the Contest Committee in proving I did not cheat?   It sure would.
>>
>> I fully support all the proposed CQ rule changes.    My view is:  either we want to clean up the sport or not.
>>
>> If you are a casual participant (and many on this list complaining are casual participants) - just take a deep breath - you are not likely to be asked for an audio recording anyway.   The Contest Committee is not interested in conducting a witch hunt on the #46 finisher.   They have too much work dealing with the top scorers.
>>
>> If you are aiming at the Top-10 box, you already have enough technology in your shack that recording your operation will not be a problem.   If this reduces cheating by others, you'll move up in the results as the cheaters above you are disqualified.   Either way, you should welcome the rule change.
>>
>> Remember - the easiest solution would be to eliminate the SOAB Unassisted category altogether and assume everyone is Assisted.   If you want to retain SOAB Unassisted and have results that mean something, then logging the frequency for each QSO and recording your effort is the price of admission.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Ken KE3X
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken KE3X
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>