Who has cheated, won anything, and gotten away with it?
Can we name names? (calls?)
If we can't declare who has cheated here, where it does not really matter, how
could the contest sponsors be expected to do so officially?
I'm fairly certain that all contest sponsors are concerned about cheating and
regularly discuss potential methods to detect cheating. I would also expect
that they are very reluctant to accuse someone without having definitive proof.
As the various methods become more definitive, I would expect that contest
sponsors will begin using them.
Regarding whether or not using packet takes skill - who cares? If the person
operating is having fun, why would anyone want to take that away from them?
Please note: I do not support the use of packet, and then denying that you used
it in your log submission.
Also, W5GN's comments are not really all that controversial. It might be one
of the ways to begin to level the playing field that many here have been
seeking for years. This type of creative thinking deserves consideration and
discussion - not the outright condemnation that it's gotten here.
Bob N5NJ
============================================================
From: <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: 2004/04/01 Thu AM 08:20:07 CST
To: "Alfred J. Frugoli (KE1FO)" <frugoli@worldlinkisp.com>
CC: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self Spotting
Al,
I think the case that most have made for removing packet is that people get
away with cheating (i.e claiming SO when they are SOA) and the contest sponsors
don't do anything about it.
I guess I am just old fashioned and my reason for removing it is that it makes
contesting for some like shooting ducks in a pond. You just point and shoot. It
doesn't take much skill to do that...
Jeff
>
> From: "Alfred J. Frugoli (KE1FO)" <frugoli@worldlinkisp.com>
> Date: 2004/03/31 Wed PM 08:36:09 EST
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com, ku8e@bellsouth.net
> Subject: Re: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self Spotting
>
> KU8E wrote:
> >
> > The packet issue has been discussed for a long time and it seems to me
> > that the majority favor removing it from contesting. Now it's time for the
> > contest
> > sponsors to react....
>
> Whoa! I think most favor the rules being enforced, not just doing away with
> packet because contesters sometimes break that rule. If we follow that logic
> we should do away with the 10 minute rule, because sometimes contesters break
> it - we should do away with power categories, because sometimes contesters
> break that rule. Where does it stop? K1TTT has shown us techniques for
> identifying potential self spotters. I think the contests sponsors need to
> take action on this empirical information, not the kind of "it seems to me"
> information you talk about.
>
> 73 de Al, KE1FO
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
============================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------
The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|