I didn't mean to point the finger at anyone in particular. I meant it as a
general statement on the state of affairs today.
See you ALL in the next contest.
Dan/W4NTI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Coleman AA4LR" <aa4lr@radio.org>
To: <w4nti@mindspring.com>; "secc" <secc@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [SECC] Comments requested.
> On 6/12/00 2:07 PM, w4nti@mindspring.com at w4nti@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >I may be mistaken here but.....all these comments of cheating and how to
> >cheat are really turning me off. I enjoy contesting for the pure thrill
of
> >it...thats it. Am I missing something here or has it turned into another
> >example of coruption in our society?
>
> Dan,
>
> My point wasn't to encourage people to cheat, but to show that
> contesting, by its nature, relies on a certain level of honor amoung the
> participants.
>
> To the degree that log checkers can uncover cheating, I think they should
> disqualify those participants.
>
> My whole objection in this area was the suggestion that a certain
> percentage of unique calls in a log submission connotes cheating. I
> disagree. It is quite possible that a log with a large percentage of
> unique calls is perfectly legitimate. Therefore, it would be
> unconscionable to disqualify someone solely on the basis of lots of
> uniques.
>
> I think disqualification should not be done by a computer. It should only
> come by careful consideration by a human judge.
>
>
>
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
> Quote: "Boot, you transistorized tormentor! Boot!"
> -- Archibald Asparagus, VeggieTales
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/seccfaq.html
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com
|