[CQ-Contest] K9YC, WRTC, deep pockets

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

How do you solve the problem of people not trusting one another?

Too many contests with too many sponsors and very little consistency in 
how the rules are enforced.

The Olympics have their own unique issues but generally the rules are 
the same for each event.  Our events have different rules for almost 
every event.

In the past there was very little transparency in the processes unless 
you were in the in crowd.  I think it is better now for some contests.  
Probably not all.

Most are doing it the right way.  The problem is those that are not.  It 
makes little sense for a little pistol to cheat when they come in 1000th 
place.

What we do see are bigger names, big time ops that probably could win 
without cheating but they do it anyway.

People have been bending/breaking the rules for years and years. Power 
has never been enforced to my knowledge because there is no way to 
really know unless someone is there with the knowledge to track the 
cables the actually put a known good meter in the path. This is never 
going to happen.  How long have we had the Italian kilowatts and the 
Russian Kilowatts and probably plenty of USA and other region kilowatts 
that are more like 3k and up?

How many DX peditions never were actually at the location that they said 
they were?  Lots.  Maybe way more than we will ever know.  It probably 
happens still today.  How many people in State QSO Parties claim to be 
on a county line and they are not because....heck this is close 
enough.....This list is endless.

If people will cheat in a silly online games with no prizes they will 
cheat at anything.  The cheating in the online game world has increased 
exponentially of late with the latest generation of players.

In the end does it really matter?  There is no scoring system that is 
"fair" nor will there ever be.  Asking people to move from their homes 
to compete is just nonsense.  That is a strawman's argument by people 
that live in the propagation blessed areas around the world or those 
islands that has a great advantage because of rules and lines on a map.

While ARRL and CQ and others try to judge entries fairly, they have no 
way to catch all the cheating.

WRTC will come the closest to a real live ham event that is as close to 
fair as you can get and even then we have found that there are some 
locations that were probably better than others.

People tend not to change.  They have to want to and most honestly do 
not.   Many people are raised in environments where gaming the game is 
better for themselves than doing it the right way.  You will have a very 
difficult time getting them to change as they have been raised in that 
environment.

I agree that even if there are inspectors people can still wonder.  W0MU 
was a friend of K0ABC......and on and on.

No easy answers or solutions.

Bottom line do it for fun.  The rewards are essentially peer recognition 
and a piece of wood or paper.

I applaud the volunteers for their efforts to do what they can.


On 8/21/2016 3:38 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> The real question is, why do we (or at least many of us) feel the need for
> "inspectors" or "referees" to visit contest stations in operation during
> major contests?
>
> Look, either you trust someone, or you don't.
>
> If you trust them, there should be no need for the inspectors, Ronald Reagan
> quotes ("Trust - but verify") from the era of the Cold War not withstanding.
>
> If you don't trust them, unless the inspectors are there for the entire
> length of the contest, you're not going to believe the inspectors "clean
> bill of health" anyway.  'Oh, they cleaned up their act when WX3XYZ was
> there, but as soon as he left, they went right back to their old tactics!'
> or something along these lines.
>
> The REAL problem is, simply put, that too many of the top contest operators
> don't trust each other.  ( And yes, I know that there are many actual
> situations of rules and/or ethics violations, ie cheating, that have come to
> light in the past, which is why so many don't trust so many others.  I'm not
> by any means condoning said violations, just looking at the aftermath. )
>
> Solve the real problem, and the need for inspectors ought to go away.
>
> So how do you solve the real problem?
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Jack Brindle
> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 1:29 PM
> To: CQ-Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] K9YC, WRTC, deep pockets
>
> I can see a new tactic on the horizon. Send a friend to inspect the station
> of a major competitor to disrupt their concentration.
> Even better, send a constant stream of visitors so the op never really gets
> going. It could be really great, until THEY retaliate in-kind.
>
> Is this really a solution to a real problem?
>
> - Jack, W6FB
>
>> On Aug 20, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is a joke, right? Inspectors?
>>
>> Will they bring dogs, urine test kits, yellow police tape?
>>
>> This is about AMATEURs, guys playing electronic splatball with our toy
>> radios?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 13:32 Tonno Vahk <tonno.vahk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What Ranko proposed was that the potential qualifiers will commit to
>>> letting anybody into their station for inspection at any time during
>>> any qualifying contest (ideally this should still be agreed and
>>> authorized by sponsors beforehand). There are local contesters who
>>> are ready to do that without any financial support from contest
>>> sponsors!
>>>
>>> Sponsors would probably just need to set some standards as to what is
>>> expected from the voluntary inspectors (e.g. recommended video and
>>> audio recording with simple handheld camera/phone and documenting the
>>> RF path, etc). As I understand there are many contesters in e.g.
>>> Balkan region who are frustrated enough and ready to do that so we
>>> should give them chance to enable the self-regulation of the contesting
> scene.
>>> 73
>>> ES5TV
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf
>>> Of kr2q at optimum.net
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 3:43 PM
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] K9YC, WRTC, deep pockets
>>>
>>> K9YC said:
>>> As I have said, the far greater problems are those related to
>>> geography and the huge advantage to those with the deepest pockets.
>>>
>>> KR2Q sez:
>>> Yes, I agree.  I's that way in contesting.  It's that way in everything.
>>>
>>> Scar (Lion King) sez:
>>> Life's not fair, is it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMzPsOy-pe4
>>>
>>> If a more equitable way can be found and implemented, go for it.
>>> Interesting discussion.
>>> I still like Ranko's thoughts on on-site inspections during "qualifying"
>>> competitions...if only the contest sponsors had the necessary resources.
>>>
>>> de Doug KR2Q
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 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
>
>
> ---
> 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