Dave,
I couldn't agree more with your position on public logs. Contesting is
a hobby, and a great one at that, but the log checking craze and public
publication of a log is all a bit much for me. Contesting is a
gentlemen's game. Let's leave a hobby a hobby - there is nothing real
at stake. For 50 years contesting didn't need any additional
transparency and we didn't suffer for a lack of it.
We all can think of many ways cheaters can game the system and never get
caught - it's their loss and their problem - and no amount of rules,
oversight, log checking will rectify the problem, plus given the fact
that this is hobby based on international goodwill and fun - who really
cares? We should spend our free time and free energy on trying to get
new, young people involved in the hobby so that 25 years from now,
people will see your CQ WW #1 score and actually be interested.
When you submit your log you are telling the contest committee that you
participated within the rules and are now making a formal entry. If
cheating is suspected, the contest committee should privately contact
the contester in question and request clarification - assuming
innocence, ignorance or mistake before duplicitous double dealing.
The argument that if one has nothing to hide, they should thus be happy
to submit their logs.... is totally illogical. It creates a false logic
sequence - that if one cheats it follows they do not want to submit
their logs. Why would one cheat if they weren't trying to win?
I participate in many many contests and rarely formally enter them. For
me, contesting is about fun and about striving for personal bests while
making good contacts regardless of my score. I post my personal results
and contest highlights on the 3830 web and that is the end of the
contest process for me. I have tons of fun and having been doing this,
with few variations, for over 10 years.
I don't accept the idea that I am depriving the committee of anything by
not submitting a log nor do I accept the premise that my non-submission
opens the door for creative cheaters.
You've done a lot of great things for contesting and youth and
contesting that transcend this silly argument about public logs. Thank
you for putting 6Y on the air with such a big signal. Your
participation, in all forms, makes my experience more fun and for that I
am grateful.
73 jeff n1snb
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
cq-contest-request@contesting.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 7:04 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 73, Issue 44
Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
cq-contest@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cq-contest-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (Paul O'Kane)
2. CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (kr2q@optimum.net)
3. Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (W0MU Mike Fatchett)
4. Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (KI9A@aol.com)
5. Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (Albert Crespo)
6. RES: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (py7rp)
7. Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (Pete Smith)
8. Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (Julius Fazekas)
9. Does anyone make dust covers for paddles? (Barry)
10. Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (Sandy Taylor)
11. Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (Michael Coslo)
12. Re: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (Steve London)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:17:29 -0000
From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <84B01A39B46A4AECBD93567601FB5F73@paul>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=original
In any competitive human activity, it's usual for the actions
of competitors to be subject to public scrutiny. How else can
the winners be determined without endless bickering from the
losers?
This applies whether the winners get prizes or merely bragging
rights.
With the publication of contest logs, much of the opportunity
for bickering is removed - unless, of course, a log shows the
entrant broke one or more rules, or there is evidence of such.
Apart from casual contesters who don't expect to win anything,
to withhold a contest log seems a bit extreme. A protest it
may be, but the inferences are often negative.
I have declined to submit logs where I didn't agree with the
contest rules - it didn't stop me taking part and having fun.
But it seems to be an odd option for a "super-station", a
potential winner, considering the time and expense involved
for all concerned.
73,
Paul EI5DI
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:34:14 +0000 (GMT)
From: kr2q@optimum.net
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <e2c3da5b227e.4982e5b6@optonline.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dave:
I fully support your right to not submit your log.
I have just reread the CQWW Rules and I do not see any explanation of
"why" the logs
are made public, so I have to wonder where you got your information
about "quelling" fear
of cheating or that public logs had anything at all do with "cheating."
I am not being
rhetorical, I would genuinely like to know the source.
And reading your memo, one might conclude that you didn't know that this
policy existed
prior to the 2008 CQWW. This was not a new policy for 2008; logs have
been previously
made public and has been so stated in the previous CQWW Rules.
Again, it is your right to not submit the 6Y1V log and I will never
challenge you on that right.
de Doug KR2Q
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:27:13 -0700
From: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: "'David Kopacz'" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>,
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <DCCE384BD5164C4687867EDA2E6C8F45@hamtower>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
So does this mean that 6Y1V will be DQed as the rules read that electric
logs are required for high scoring entrants or did 6Y1V just not submit
anything to CQ?
If there is nothing to hide and you stand behind your score then what do
you
have to worry about?
I can see why some would not want other to see their logs as it
potentially
could expose a strategy that others may not be on to aside from any
nefarious activities.
I guess if you are not intending to follow the rules then don't operate
or
don't submit your logs for consideration of winning an award.
Mike W0MU
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:54 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
6Y1V did not submit its log to CQ Magazine for the CQWW CW contest in
2008.
I personally thank my guest operators Kelly VE4XT and Gary W5ZL for
granting
me the flexibility to make this decision. I want to stress that my
opinions
below are my own, not theirs. They neither condoned nor condemn my
action;
they simply agreed to provide me the latitude to make the decision
without
prejudice. For this alone, they are to be commended. In addition, they
are
both fine gentlemen and fantastic operators.
I am not in agreement with the CQWW committee's decision to publish logs
without the implicit consent of the log owner simply to quell a fear of
cheating, real or perceived. Note that I do think quell is a highly
appropriate term here. If cheating is suspected, it should be dealt with
privately and quietly between the committee and the accused. If outside
assistance is needed to review logs, it should be solicited privately by
the
committee. If someone is found to be cheating, then making that
knowledge
public should be done at the discretion of the committee, but based upon
firm rules applied equally to all.
While I understand the new policy's intent, the results may be akin to a
public flogging in a town square. It's likely that eventually someone
will
be accused of cheating when they are truly not guilty. The accusation
will
most likely come from someone other than the contest committee. Imagine
if
the contest committee doesn't make the painstaking effort necessary to
thoroughly review the log of the accused in order to publicly exonerate
him/her.
The perception of being accused alone will leave lasting scars for the
innocent contester as most competitors will not independently research
the
facts themselves in order to exonerate the accused; thereby leaving the
impression the accuser is correct.
Our society has moved beyond this method of social restraint, so why is
amateur radio contesting moving in the opposite direction?
In my opinion, in a hobby where the stakes are so low, there is no
monetary
reward and most of us do this just for fun, the idea of forcing people
to
open their personal logs for worldwide inspection is not only ludicrous
but
it is downright shameful. The contest committees might as well just be
saying "We don't trust our fellow amateurs". For a hobby founded on
International brotherhood and goodwill, this is a very sad time.
Since I did not have an opportunity to express my opinion during the
decision making process, my only recourse is to publicly object and not
turn
in my logs. Some have suggested I shouldn't participate at all. Why
should I
stop having fun just to make my point? Besides, if a few dozen
participants
with large logs stop sending them, it just may have a significant impact
upon the log checking process and eventually the committee may see that
not
only is this decision unpopular but it has consequences as well.
While opening my log to anyone that asks is really no big deal, having
the
right to decide to whom and when I open it is a big deal. I choose to
open
my logs to the contest committee, but I choose not to open them to the
world. In addition, I choose not to enable a system that assumes guilt
before innocence.
David ~ KY1V
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:47:15 EST
From: KI9A@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <c6c.410162ca.36b442c3@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Maybe I am missing something here.
A log is made available to contest sponsors, for sometimes, extreme
examination, and contesters generally have no problem with that.
But, when they are made public, for all to see, there is such a huge
problem, that a super station has refused to submit one?
What can the public find in it, that the sponsors can't? Perhaps
revealing
operating techniques, and strategy? If that is the problem, JUST SAY
IT!
Don't dance around your problem.
Heck, I have issues with contest rules for many contests..enough to make
threads on here until next fall, but, I still enter, and HAVE FUN with
radio
sport.
Oh well, can't please everyone I guess.
73- Chuck KI9A
**************Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve
your
credit score.
(http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall0000000
2)
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:06:10 -0000
From: "Albert Crespo" <f5vhj@orange.fr>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <F9ED53C945F145A2B101BF2EE29200AF@F5VHJ>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
It would not be surprised if 6Y1V contacts start to show up in logs in
greater frequency then in the past. Since there will be no way to verify
6Y1V QSOs, this multiplier is ripe to be added to those who have
"creative"
logs.
Many contacts get logged that are questionable because of QRM, QRN, or
whatever that are later labeled NIL. That is nothing new.
In the old days before electronic logs, these questionable contacts just
got
counted in most cases because of the sheer enormity of verification for
every contact. Now they can be weeded out through the useage of
electronic
logs.
If everyone followed the stand of 6Y1V, then we would go back to old
days of
paper logging when verifying contacts was very hit and miss. It would
damage
the whole system of trying to make sure that accuracy counts.
I doubt many will want to go back to this old system which was subject
to
abuse and arbitrary evaluation of logs.
If you do not want to play the game by the rules, try to change the
rules.
If you cannot do so, then you don't play the game.
As for public logs, when I bother to check why I am not in somebody's
log
that I have received a NIL , it is helpful to me to find out if someone
was
so off base in copying my call that I am not in it, or that that person
never actually heard the QSO and the fault was at my end.
----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike
Fatchett
Sent: 30 January 2009 04:27
To: 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
So does this mean that 6Y1V will be DQed as the rules read that electric
logs are required for high scoring entrants or did 6Y1V just not submit
anything to CQ?
If there is nothing to hide and you stand behind your score then what do
you
have to worry about?
I can see why some would not want other to see their logs as it
potentially
could expose a strategy that others may not be on to aside from any
nefarious activities.
I guess if you are not intending to follow the rules then don't operate
or
don't submit your logs for consideration of winning an award.
Mike W0MU
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:54 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
6Y1V did not submit its log to CQ Magazine for the CQWW CW contest in
2008.
I personally thank my guest operators Kelly VE4XT and Gary W5ZL for
granting
me the flexibility to make this decision. I want to stress that my
opinions
below are my own, not theirs. They neither condoned nor condemn my
action;
they simply agreed to provide me the latitude to make the decision
without
prejudice. For this alone, they are to be commended. In addition, they
are
both fine gentlemen and fantastic operators.
I am not in agreement with the CQWW committee's decision to publish logs
without the implicit consent of the log owner simply to quell a fear of
cheating, real or perceived. Note that I do think quell is a highly
appropriate term here. If cheating is suspected, it should be dealt with
privately and quietly between the committee and the accused. If outside
assistance is needed to review logs, it should be solicited privately by
the
committee. If someone is found to be cheating, then making that
knowledge
public should be done at the discretion of the committee, but based upon
firm rules applied equally to all.
While I understand the new policy's intent, the results may be akin to a
public flogging in a town square. It's likely that eventually someone
will
be accused of cheating when they are truly not guilty. The accusation
will
most likely come from someone other than the contest committee. Imagine
if
the contest committee doesn't make the painstaking effort necessary to
thoroughly review the log of the accused in order to publicly exonerate
him/her.
The perception of being accused alone will leave lasting scars for the
innocent contester as most competitors will not independently research
the
facts themselves in order to exonerate the accused; thereby leaving the
impression the accuser is correct.
Our society has moved beyond this method of social restraint, so why is
amateur radio contesting moving in the opposite direction?
In my opinion, in a hobby where the stakes are so low, there is no
monetary
reward and most of us do this just for fun, the idea of forcing people
to
open their personal logs for worldwide inspection is not only ludicrous
but
it is downright shameful. The contest committees might as well just be
saying "We don't trust our fellow amateurs". For a hobby founded on
International brotherhood and goodwill, this is a very sad time.
Since I did not have an opportunity to express my opinion during the
decision making process, my only recourse is to publicly object and not
turn
in my logs. Some have suggested I shouldn't participate at all. Why
should I
stop having fun just to make my point? Besides, if a few dozen
participants
with large logs stop sending them, it just may have a significant impact
upon the log checking process and eventually the committee may see that
not
only is this decision unpopular but it has consequences as well.
While opening my log to anyone that asks is really no big deal, having
the
right to decide to whom and when I open it is a big deal. I choose to
open
my logs to the contest committee, but I choose not to open them to the
world. In addition, I choose not to enable a system that assumes guilt
before innocence.
David ~ KY1V
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:11:01 -0300
From: "py7rp" <py7rp@yahoo.com.br>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] RES: CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <005f01c982d3$d22bb580$76832080$@com.br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
I fully agree with you David. I can?t realize what is the real
Problem in openning our logs since our transmitions are
free (at least theoricaly) to any HAM listen or even
record it.
Here in Brazil we have a popular phrase that says:
"If you dont have anything to hide, you should not worry about it"
I respect 6Y1V decision but i do not agree with it.
73 Renner
P Y 7 R P
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:22:03 -0500
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20090130071148.08db87f0@mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 12:11 AM 1/30/2009, George Fremin III wrote:
>I think open logs are great. I have only looked at a few. I do not
>see how publishing the logs assumes that everyone or anyone is
>cheating. If anything it opens up the entire log checking process a
>bit more - by allowing anyone to look at the logs and even do their
>own log checking if they desire.
>
>I rarely look at anyones logs but I will willing share my logs with
>anyone. I only wish the ARRL would follow CQ's lead with open logs.
What George said... A few years ago, I suggested that CQ and the ARRL
enter
into an agreement so that confirmed CQWW QSOs (cross-checked in both
logs)
would be entered into Logbook of the World and accepted for award
credit. At the time, the CQWW Committee was unwilling to release "a
single
QSO" to anyone outside, so the idea went nowhere.
I don't know what prompted the reversal of policy, but I'm grateful for
it. Maybe ARRL will follow suit and this idea can go somewhere. I
really
don't see how it can be anything but good for contesters and certificate
collectors.
73, Pete N4ZR
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 04:52:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: cq-contest@contesting.com, Albert Crespo <f5vhj@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <466343.65345.qm@web39501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
This is an interesting perspective...
Stop giving people ideas ;o)
73,
Julius
Julius Fazekas
N2WN
Tennessee Contest Group
TnQP http://www.tnqp.org/
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366
--- On Fri, 1/30/09, Albert Crespo <f5vhj@orange.fr> wrote:
> From: Albert Crespo <f5vhj@orange.fr>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 7:06 AM
> It would not be surprised if 6Y1V contacts start to show up
> in logs in
> greater frequency then in the past. Since there will be no
> way to verify
> 6Y1V QSOs, this multiplier is ripe to be added to those who
> have "creative"
> logs.
> Many contacts get logged that are questionable because of
> QRM, QRN, or
> whatever that are later labeled NIL. That is nothing new.
> In the old days before electronic logs, these questionable
> contacts just got
> counted in most cases because of the sheer enormity of
> verification for
> every contact. Now they can be weeded out through the
> useage of electronic
> logs.
> If everyone followed the stand of 6Y1V, then we would go
> back to old days of
> paper logging when verifying contacts was very hit and
> miss. It would damage
> the whole system of trying to make sure that accuracy
> counts.
> I doubt many will want to go back to this old system which
> was subject to
> abuse and arbitrary evaluation of logs.
> If you do not want to play the game by the rules, try to
> change the rules.
> If you cannot do so, then you don't play the game.
> As for public logs, when I bother to check why I am not in
> somebody's log
> that I have received a NIL , it is helpful to me to find
> out if someone was
> so off base in copying my call that I am not in it, or that
> that person
> never actually heard the QSO and the fault was at my end.
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> W0MU Mike Fatchett
> Sent: 30 January 2009 04:27
> To: 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
>
>
> So does this mean that 6Y1V will be DQed as the rules read
> that electric
> logs are required for high scoring entrants or did 6Y1V
> just not submit
> anything to CQ?
>
> If there is nothing to hide and you stand behind your score
> then what do you
> have to worry about?
>
> I can see why some would not want other to see their logs
> as it potentially
> could expose a strategy that others may not be on to aside
> from any
> nefarious activities.
>
> I guess if you are not intending to follow the rules then
> don't operate or
> don't submit your logs for consideration of winning an
> award.
>
> Mike W0MU
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> David Kopacz
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:54 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
>
> 6Y1V did not submit its log to CQ Magazine for the CQWW CW
> contest in 2008.
>
> I personally thank my guest operators Kelly VE4XT and Gary
> W5ZL for granting
> me the flexibility to make this decision. I want to stress
> that my opinions
> below are my own, not theirs. They neither condoned nor
> condemn my action;
> they simply agreed to provide me the latitude to make the
> decision without
> prejudice. For this alone, they are to be commended. In
> addition, they are
> both fine gentlemen and fantastic operators.
>
> I am not in agreement with the CQWW committee's
> decision to publish logs
> without the implicit consent of the log owner simply to
> quell a fear of
> cheating, real or perceived. Note that I do think quell is
> a highly
> appropriate term here. If cheating is suspected, it should
> be dealt with
> privately and quietly between the committee and the
> accused. If outside
> assistance is needed to review logs, it should be solicited
> privately by the
> committee. If someone is found to be cheating, then making
> that knowledge
> public should be done at the discretion of the committee,
> but based upon
> firm rules applied equally to all.
>
> While I understand the new policy's intent, the results
> may be akin to a
> public flogging in a town square. It's likely that
> eventually someone will
> be accused of cheating when they are truly not guilty. The
> accusation will
> most likely come from someone other than the contest
> committee. Imagine if
> the contest committee doesn't make the painstaking
> effort necessary to
> thoroughly review the log of the accused in order to
> publicly exonerate
> him/her.
>
> The perception of being accused alone will leave lasting
> scars for the
> innocent contester as most competitors will not
> independently research the
> facts themselves in order to exonerate the accused; thereby
> leaving the
> impression the accuser is correct.
>
> Our society has moved beyond this method of social
> restraint, so why is
> amateur radio contesting moving in the opposite direction?
>
> In my opinion, in a hobby where the stakes are so low,
> there is no monetary
> reward and most of us do this just for fun, the idea of
> forcing people to
> open their personal logs for worldwide inspection is not
> only ludicrous but
> it is downright shameful. The contest committees might as
> well just be
> saying "We don't trust our fellow amateurs".
> For a hobby founded on
> International brotherhood and goodwill, this is a very sad
> time.
>
> Since I did not have an opportunity to express my opinion
> during the
> decision making process, my only recourse is to publicly
> object and not turn
> in my logs. Some have suggested I shouldn't participate
> at all. Why should I
> stop having fun just to make my point? Besides, if a few
> dozen participants
> with large logs stop sending them, it just may have a
> significant impact
> upon the log checking process and eventually the committee
> may see that not
> only is this decision unpopular but it has consequences as
> well.
>
> While opening my log to anyone that asks is really no big
> deal, having the
> right to decide to whom and when I open it is a big deal. I
> choose to open
> my logs to the contest committee, but I choose not to open
> them to the
> world. In addition, I choose not to enable a system that
> assumes guilt
> before innocence.
>
> David ~ KY1V
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:19:57 +0000
From: Barry <w2up3@verizon.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Does anyone make dust covers for paddles?
To: "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <4982FE7D.6070300@verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Many years ago, I bought a plexiglass dust cover for a Bencher paddle.
Now I have other paddles of various shapes and sizes, but no covers.
Does anyone have a current source for them?
Tnx,
Barry W2UP
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:23:21 -0600
From: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: "'W0MU Mike Fatchett'" <w0mu@w0mu.com>, "'David Kopacz'"
<david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>,
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <000001c982e6$4e236040$ea6a20c0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Since you aren't bound by any rules unless you enter, you can't be DQ'd
if
you don't enter.
Arguing for the preservation of the presumption of innocence is not
tantamount to being guilty, either.
Choosing not to participate is a largely ineffective form of protest.
One
station out of thousands not getting on the air won't change things an
iota.
Participating, and racking up some 5,000 QSOs and then not submitting a
log
makes a bit more noise than staying entirely silent, no?
I don't take a stand on the issue one way or the other, but I can't
agree
that those arguing against have anything to hide.
I respect Dave's decision, and it doesn't take away from the wonderful
experience of operating such a fabulous station.
73, Kelly
Ve4xt
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike
Fatchett
Sent: January-29-09 10:27 PM
To: 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
So does this mean that 6Y1V will be DQed as the rules read that electric
logs are required for high scoring entrants or did 6Y1V just not submit
anything to CQ?
If there is nothing to hide and you stand behind your score then what do
you
have to worry about?
I can see why some would not want other to see their logs as it
potentially
could expose a strategy that others may not be on to aside from any
nefarious activities.
I guess if you are not intending to follow the rules then don't operate
or
don't submit your logs for consideration of winning an award.
Mike W0MU
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:54 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
6Y1V did not submit its log to CQ Magazine for the CQWW CW contest in
2008.
I personally thank my guest operators Kelly VE4XT and Gary W5ZL for
granting
me the flexibility to make this decision. I want to stress that my
opinions
below are my own, not theirs. They neither condoned nor condemn my
action;
they simply agreed to provide me the latitude to make the decision
without
prejudice. For this alone, they are to be commended. In addition, they
are
both fine gentlemen and fantastic operators.
I am not in agreement with the CQWW committee's decision to publish logs
without the implicit consent of the log owner simply to quell a fear of
cheating, real or perceived. Note that I do think quell is a highly
appropriate term here. If cheating is suspected, it should be dealt with
privately and quietly between the committee and the accused. If outside
assistance is needed to review logs, it should be solicited privately by
the
committee. If someone is found to be cheating, then making that
knowledge
public should be done at the discretion of the committee, but based upon
firm rules applied equally to all.
While I understand the new policy's intent, the results may be akin to a
public flogging in a town square. It's likely that eventually someone
will
be accused of cheating when they are truly not guilty. The accusation
will
most likely come from someone other than the contest committee. Imagine
if
the contest committee doesn't make the painstaking effort necessary to
thoroughly review the log of the accused in order to publicly exonerate
him/her.
The perception of being accused alone will leave lasting scars for the
innocent contester as most competitors will not independently research
the
facts themselves in order to exonerate the accused; thereby leaving the
impression the accuser is correct.
Our society has moved beyond this method of social restraint, so why is
amateur radio contesting moving in the opposite direction?
In my opinion, in a hobby where the stakes are so low, there is no
monetary
reward and most of us do this just for fun, the idea of forcing people
to
open their personal logs for worldwide inspection is not only ludicrous
but
it is downright shameful. The contest committees might as well just be
saying "We don't trust our fellow amateurs". For a hobby founded on
International brotherhood and goodwill, this is a very sad time.
Since I did not have an opportunity to express my opinion during the
decision making process, my only recourse is to publicly object and not
turn
in my logs. Some have suggested I shouldn't participate at all. Why
should I
stop having fun just to make my point? Besides, if a few dozen
participants
with large logs stop sending them, it just may have a significant impact
upon the log checking process and eventually the committee may see that
not
only is this decision unpopular but it has consequences as well.
While opening my log to anyone that asks is really no big deal, having
the
right to decide to whom and when I open it is a big deal. I choose to
open
my logs to the contest committee, but I choose not to open them to the
world. In addition, I choose not to enable a system that assumes guilt
before innocence.
David ~ KY1V
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:54:14 -0500
From: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: CQcontest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <7E89342D-7B03-4FAB-9132-3310E217CACB@psu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:27 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> So does this mean that 6Y1V will be DQed as the rules read that
> electric
> logs are required for high scoring entrants or did 6Y1V just not
> submit
> anything to CQ?
Seems like he is exercising his right to do as he wishes.
There is nothing to prevent a person from operating in a contest. Log
submissions are completely optional. You cannot be DQ'd from something
you didn't enter.
>
>
> If there is nothing to hide and you stand behind your score then
> what do you
> have to worry about?
That rationalization is chilling, because it has been used to justify
a whole lot of things. Many not so good.
>
> I can see why some would not want other to see their logs as it
> potentially
> could expose a strategy that others may not be on to aside from any
> nefarious activities.
>
> I guess if you are not intending to follow the rules then don't
> operate or
> don't submit your logs for consideration of winning an award.
Here you have the issue. The above looks as if it assumes that a
person who operates and does not submit is not playing by the rules.
I'd submit that honest, upstanding people who would never dream of
cheating, could also hold a valid conviction that their logs are
something between themselves and their contest sponsor.
Why on earth would anyone even complain about David not submitting? He
doesn't like one of the rules, acted completely within his rights as
an Amateur radio operator by operating in the contest, didn't submit
his log, and just mentioned it here, with his reason.
Opening logs to the public bothers some people. Some enough to decline
participation. It is the side effect of opening the logs publicly.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:02:48 -0700
From: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <49831698.6020407@arrl.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
David Kopacz wrote:
> 6Y1V did not submit its log to CQ Magazine for the CQWW CW contest in
> 2008.
>
> I personally thank my guest operators Kelly VE4XT and Gary W5ZL for
> granting me the flexibility to make this decision.
>
> I am not in agreement with the CQWW committee's decision to publish
logs
> without the implicit consent of the log owner...
Did you obtain explicit consent from Kelly and Gary, prior to the
contest, that
you would not be submitting their log ?
I feel really bad for Kelly and Gary, having put in such a great effort,
only to
have it go unpublished, due to your warped sense of honor.
And, by the way, how does being a part-owner of a station and callsign
in
Jamaica make you the log owner of all efforts using that callsign ? You
may be
legally responsible for the operation, but that does not make you the
sole log
owner. IMHO, Kelly and Gary are just as much owners of the log as you.
Steve, N2IC
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 73, Issue 44
******************************************
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|