Mike’s right: we only have one side of the story, and we may never get, nor
ever be entitled to get, the other side.
That said, the availability of IP spoofing is not proof of guilt, just as
claiming a self-spot came from a different IP isn’t proof of innocence. If his
friends verify his claim, is that enough?
That an audio recording wasn’t proof enough to nullify a claim of having
arranged a QSO is interesting, however. As is the OP’s claim every other
complaint was resolved, except for two that resulted in no points but also
resulted in the DQ.
I’m also struck by wondering how likely it is a truly guilty party would air an
unjustified grievance, considering it is highly unlikely a contest committee
would buckle to such pressure.
Some of the vehemence directed towards eliminating cheating reminds me of
William Roper, from A Man for All Seasons, who would lay flat all the laws of
the land to get at the devil.
I’m not trying to impugn the committee nor impugn nor exonerate the original
poster. But it is all something worth thinking about going forward.
73, kelly, ve4xt
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 8:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>
> I can't believe people cheat in radio contests. Shame on them. Ops that are
> fantastic padding logs, power violations too many to mention, remote
> receivers across the globe, self spotting and on and on for what?
>
> A 50 dollar wooden plaque or a piece of paper with fancy lettering on it.
>
> Once again we have heard one side of the argument. Does anyone know what
> proof CQ has in this case. Maybe there is much more to this story.
>
> In computer gaming, every time a cheater that has been caught who goes public
> to argue his case, each and every case that person was proven to be in the
> wrong. Going public is the last hope to get a bunch of sympathy from people
> that have ZERO facts.
>
> For the record IP spoofing is incredibly easy. Who cares if you have a
> static address. It means nothing and proves nothing. The young hacker
> modding crowd have been using IP spoofing for years and years.
>
> Please stop trying to justify bad behavior.
>
> W0MU
>
>
> .
> On 2/21/2017 8:17 AM, Alessandro Gromme wrote:
>> I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest as well if anyone has
>> broken the rules and has been unmasked.
>> if someone did not break the rules, and is accused of having done so, has
>> clear and irrefutable evidence of not having done and is still qualified,
>> this I call it "decide in advance and deliberately to exclude someone from
>> the rankings."
>>
>> about your sentence: "They usually have some pretty solid evidence. The
>> WRTC committee makes the rules for qualifying not CQ." well ... I can tell
>> you that in my case they have an ip that is not located in my area, which,
>> as belonging to a range of dynamic IP is in turn assigned to different
>> users on the network, which can not in any way attributable specifically to
>> me.
>> I have a contract with the static IP Internet provider signed three years
>> ago, an IP that never changes, and that is only assigned to my station.
>> Now I ask: "who have secure and unassailable proof of something?"
>>
>> This is their strength, their luck: there are many people who can not
>> believe that the committee is acting improperly and therefore assumes that
>> they are always right, even in these cases as plugging your eyes or putting
>> your head under the sand like ostriches but it is not so
>>
>> 2017-02-21 4:43 GMT+01:00 Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>> I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest. That being said I'm 100
>>> percent sure that the CQWW contest committee doesn't take the decision to
>>> disqualify someone lightly. Especially if it's someone in a position to
>>> quality for a WRTC slot. They usually have some pretty solid evidence. The
>>> WRTC committee makes the rules for qualifying not CQ.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|