At 09:05 AM 7/4/98 EDT, KR2Q wrote:
>
>Dear Contesters:
>
>I have certainly read lots of mail on post-contest "sanitizing,"
"correcting,"
>"fixing typos," etc. It is OBVIOUS that the waters are muddy. Please allow
>me to clear them up...and remember...this is about POST contest "fixing" of
>callsigns and nothing else.
>
><TONS OF STUFF SNIPPED>
>
>I look forward to seeing your comments. This has been a LONG commentary,
so I
>strongly suggest that you re-read the 3 paragraphes under the title "THE
>EXAMPLE" (near the beginning) again....and THINK about it.
>
>Thanks for your time!
>
>Respectfully submitted,
>de Doug KR2Q
>
I took the time to read Doug's comments twice. I think his comments are
very noble and his vision of logging ethics is certainly one I would not
mind living by. But there are conflicts between what he says and what is
reality.
I also took the time to pull September 1997, CQ Magazine to review the
rules for the 1997 CQWW Contest. These official rules are the guidelines
for all contest participants and anything said outside of the written rules
is nothing more than someone's opinion.
The CQWW rules do not support Doug's statements about the ethics of post
contest log "fixing". In fact it says nothing at all about when the contest
data is "locked in" for contest reporting. In the disqualification section
there are the usual vague references about the "unsportsmanlike conduct",
"taking credit for duplicate contacts", "unverifiable QSOs and mults", etc.
But the second paragraph of that section seemed to imply something entirely
different from what Doug says. That part of the rules reads, "An entrant
whose log is deemed by the Committee to contain a large number of
discrepancies may be disqualified from eligibility for an award, ... <more
of the same deleted> ..."
This implies that if you made mistakes in your log, then you stand the
chance of being disqualified. Since I come from a generation of contesters
that feel that disqualification is the next worse thing to death, I can
understand someone wanting to go over their logs to make sure everything is
OK. Better contesters are less likely to review their logs because they
have more confidence in their ability. But those that are new or unsure of
their ability, might feel the need to make sure the log is "OK".
Add to this that you have four weeks to send in your CQWW SSB logs and six
weeks to send in your CQWW CW logs. AND, I repeat AND! And you can get a
one month extension to submit your logs if you request it in writing to the
contest director. This certainly implies that the real CQWW rules want you
to make sure your logs are correct for submission and they don't care how
you prepare your logs.
The only other comment I have is about taping a contest and actually
logging it post contest. I don't think the CQWW Committee has the time or
motivation to police whether the entrant actually puts into his log what he
sent during the contest. I also believe it is probable that the entrant
will log what he determines to be correct during review of the tapes. Does
the CQWW Committee actually review the entire 48 hours to insure this
doesn't happen? I think not. Especially not using volunteer help that is
already overloaded to meet magazine deadlines.
Everyone has an opinion about post contest ethics and sometimes opposing
opinions can both have merit. I find that contest ethics is a lot like
religion. There are always some who think their beliefs are the only
correct and righteous path to follow. But if you sit back and look at the
big picture, you can see that operating ethics can be a personal thing that
is based on someone's opinion. These opinions are not always shared by
everyone else and it is only through complete consenses that positive
contest ethics for all can be determined. Unless, of course, the contest
rules state explicitly what is expected of each participant.
73, Richard
K5NA@BGA.COM
http://www.realtime.net/~k5na
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|