On 14/09/2012 10:17, Rick Kiessig wrote:
My view is that cheating is primarily a moral issue, and that morality
cannot be "legislated." You can't force someone to be moral. Rules won't
make someone more moral. The moral must be chosen; you have to want
to be
moral.
Why, then, are all competitive events governed by
rules? Because, without rules, morality would not
be a factor in the results.
If a cheater "wins," their victory will be hollow,
Cheaters are delighted with any victory - that's why
they cheat.
Only an honest competitor will truly enjoy the win for the long term.
How would you know - you're not dishonest? :-)
Rules should be enforced, but they should also be enforceable.
It's preferable that rules can be enforced. At present,
there's no absolute way of enforcing power-lever rules,
but that's no reason not to have power-level rules.
To reinforce this point, I would like to suggest a move in the opposite
direction from Yuri's recent post: fewer rules all around, not more.
Isn't that equivalent to ignoring the issue of cheating
in contesting, and hoping it will go away?
Trying to
legislate things like power levels, assisted vs. not, use of a local
Skimmer, and so on, is just a waste of time and effort.
On the contrary, all these seem to be perfectly
reasonable things to do.
If you do have an honest win, why spoil it with some nagging doubt about
whether you fully, absolutely complied with the rules?
When anyone has nagging doubts about whether they
complied with the rules, chances are they didn't
have an honest win.
Rules that are updated promptly in the light of
experience are essential to combat cheating in
contesting.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest