I've been mulling this over the last few days, especially in view of several
private comments I've gotten. (Had to do something besides listen to Eagles
CD's on the 5 hour drive to DC, and back again)
Let's cut to the chase.
Is there more cheating going on? The answer depends on a lot on your point
of view.
If you believe that there is always going to be a small percentage of
contesters who will try to push the envelope too far (or just outright
cheat), the answer (in terms of percentage) might be "no" or "not really" or
"not significantly"
If, otoh, you go by raw numbers, the answer might be "yes." Which then
further beggars the question... is the increase in raw numbers a factor
because the overall number of contesters has increased? (IE, the percentage
remains constant, which means as there are more contesters, there are more
cheaters)?
Or, is it an apparant increase, not a real one? That is, are we seeing not
so much an increase in cheaters, but (due to improvements in technology and
uses thereof) an increase in cheaters CAUGHT.
The problem with these questions is... there may be no answers. Oh, the
organizers and log checkers of a particular contest may be able to provide
some data from THEIR contest(s)... then again, they may not, or choose not
to.
We may never know. As one person told me privately, "Are there more
cheaters? I would say yes. Do I have hard data to back it up? No. Is there
any reason to devote the energy to collecting the data? No."
I would submit that if we lack hard data, then we are dealing with opinions,
not facts. If the hard data is either not available or can not (or will
not) be gathered, we will always be dealing with opinions, never facts.
I would hate to see major changes implemented and forced on the contesting
community because someone else "thinks" there is a problem -- but doesn't
actually "know" if there is a problem.
Where's the beef?
I had someone tell me that use of the 3830 reflector should be mandated for
raw scores. I don't know if that's such a good idea -- mandating it, that
is. However, I strongly suspect that the 3830 posts from some stations have
more than a few times raised eyebrows. And we've seen plenty of comments on
this and other reflectors about questions raised following a public posting
of scoring information. In several cases, the party in question defended
his team's actions; in others, usually stating a mis-understanding or
mis-interpretation of the rules, the log was ultimately submitted as a
non-competitive check log. (I hasten to add that pending evidence to the
contrary, if someone claims that they made a serious error due to a
misunderstanding, I'll take their word for it.)
Someone else, who interestingly enough also brought up the 3830 list, also
mentioned his belief that because it is now easier to cheat, there are more
cheaters. (The example cited to me implied that many SO ops are actualy
SO/A, but that this could be difficult). Again, this is a suspicion based
on a lack of evidence.
Several times in the recent discussion, sports analogies have been thrown
out (not always appropriately). Here's one to think about... when it comes
to ethical operating, IMHO(YMMV), I believe amateur radio contesting should
be like professional golf. How many times have you heard about a pro golfer
being disqualified -- voluntarily, mind you -- for relatively minor
infractions, like forgetting to sign the score card before leaving the
scorer's tent, or for miscounting strokes, and so forth? We should be like
that -- if we make a mistake, own up to it, take ourselves out of the
running, and try to do better next time.
We used to be like that. Well, most of us anyway.
Regardless. I still believe most of us are honest and do our best to be so.
73, ron w3wn
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|