> Why is there WAY more indignation being heaped upon the contest
committee
> than on the identified cheaters?
Bingo. The conetest committee didn't create the problem that is trying
to be fixed here.
...
This rule is intended for people who are likely not playing by the
rules,
but we have no other way to prove it other than monitoring them (in a
similar manner as WRTC).
...
73 Tree N6TR
tree@kkn.net
I agree, the CC didn't create the problem, but it's easy to infer why
more indignation is being placed upon the CC than the cheaters
themselves.
Read the initial comment closely. It specifies "identified cheaters".
There is a big difference between an identified cheater and a "suspected
cheater". The rule targets "suspected cheaters", not identified
cheaters, otherwise it would specify station inspections for only those
that have been caught cheating in the past.
I have asked the CC to divulge how they are identifying cheaters, not
specifically to me, but publicly. They refuse to divulge that
information in the interest of protecting their methods from being
circumvented by cheaters. This I can understand to some degree. I have
also asked for some numbers proving cheating is rampant in contesting.
They have not provided that information either. We've seen a handful of
DQ's. There are thousands of contesters. The numbers indicate that the
vast majority of contesters are not cheating.
So where is the proof? Not one person, CC member or otherwise, has
provided a shred of evidence that cheating is a huge problem.
A few people were DQ'd from last year's contest. I commend the CC for
identifying those that cheated and taking action. Now, would you suggest
the rest of the contest community should now heap indignation on those
that cheated and were caught? Are you saying we should punish them
further than that which the CC has already imposed? If so, explain what
we should do to them? If the cheaters peers should be doing something,
someone please make a suggestion! Personally, I think punishment should
be left to the CC and peers should be only report known instances, but
that may have consequences and separate public discussions about
reporting should take place.
Now, the CC has taken action against "identified cheaters" and because
of their actions, we all know who they are by the announced DQ's. Should
the CC now to take some action against "suspected cheaters" who are not
yet identified? If so, what methods are being used to identify suspects?
Do you see where I am going with this?
The CC can already identify suspected cheaters through existing methods
(log analysis, reports, etc.). What this new rule tells us is there may
be additional "suspects" for which existing methods are not providing
evidence. We know this because if they could identify these additional
suspects, they would simply identify them and DQ them. So the big
questions now becomes, should we allow the CC to enter our homes to
inspect our stations so we can exonerate ourselves and be removed from
the "suspects" list? The CC committee tells us that if they ask to enter
our homes and we refuse them access, we will automatically be DQ'd from
contests for 3 years. That's ludicrous!.
If you want to catch and stop cheaters, you need our help. Setup a
confidential hotline, reward people that provide tips and then deal with
the people reported directly and quietly. If you think the report is
credible and you think the suspect is lying, deal with them how you see
fit, but don't require innocent people to be required to allow you into
their homes for no good reason.
Please, think about it!
David ~ KY1V/6Y1V
PS: If anyone from the CC ever wants to inspect 6Y1V, just join the
team. You'll get the best seat in the house for inspecting!
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|