This thread is getting ridiculous....we're not even past the log checking
process and someone is accusing another of cheating! I strongly suggest that
if you have any concerns related to one's operation that you email the contest
organizer privately (in this case K5ZD) and let them qualify
each situation accordingly This is ludicrous.
Shane K1ZR
----- Original Message -----
From: "LU5DX Martin" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
To: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Cc: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:53:05 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW
Claimed scores.
Ron.
It's pretty obvious the score I am talking about.
Take a look at the SOAB HP scores and you'll quickly realize who I am
talking about.
And his score is way too unexplainable because it is not likely to happen
that way. A station in Zone 8 has very few chances to win over a station in
zone 9. Specially a zone 9 station being operated by a really good op, with
a very good setup.
And even less, to finish with such a big advantage about other station in
zone 8 whose op has been doing SOAB HP for years from the very same
location, a very skilled op, who operated for 47 hours, with more
aluminum, with better RX antennas for the low bands, etc, etc.
However, what reputation are you talking about?
Our hobby has been hammered for years by professional cheaters:
Power abuse,
Packet abuse,
Log massaging,
Ghost Operators
Ghost Locations
Multiple Signals
Rubber Clocking
Category hopping
What else?
So yes, Most people are honest. Not so, for the ones competing at a high
level.
So please don't be so overwhelmed by my assertions.
73.
Martin, LU5DX
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>wrote:
> Oh?
>
> Which scores? Why do you think they're unexplainable?
>
> A blanket assertion like this without details directly or indirectly
> smears, or could smear, the reputations quite a few operators.
>
> While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd certainly want more information
> about what is allegedly happening before even beginning to consider revamps
> or changes, let alone agreeing to them.
>
> 73
>
>
> On 12/04/13, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
>
> I really hope at least some of you would agree that a revamp of the
> observer program is needed.
>
> There are scores that are really unexplainable.
>
> Hopefully cheaters will get disqualified (again).
>
> Vy 73.
>
> Martin, LU5DX
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|