Wow, I am really having a hard time fathoming the pathology
of someone who would fake a QSL confirmation for 160 and
then submit it for award credit. Thats seriously twisted, but I
guess it shouldn't surprise me given what I hear going on in
pileups these days.
BTW, on a related note, would it be considered unethical
to alter a QSL to correct a mistake made by the QSL manager?
Case in point is a card I received which showed "18 MHz" in
the frequency block. The card I sent to the manager with the
"PSE QSL" request was for a 160 meter contact. My card
showed "1.8 MHz" in the frequency block. The QSL manager
presumeably verified that I was in the log since he sent me
a return QSL. I know I didn't work the station on 18 MHz
because I distinctly remember working the station on 160
meters at that time, and my log shows a match with everything
on his card except the frequency. My guess is that the manager
wasn't watching and put the "dot" on top of part of the "1" or
part of the "8". Is it ethical for me alter the card and add the dot
in, or should I spend an extra 2 bucks and request another card
to stay on the moral high ground? Would altering the card (to
correct it) inch me closer to the "twisted pathology" of the guy
who knowingly fabricates a confirmation for a QSO that he
knows didn't take place?
Sorry that this is a little of topic for CQ-Contest, but I couldn't
resist.
73 de Mike, W4EF................
---- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Tippett" <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
> WN3VAW wrote:
>
> >But what keeps getting overlooked, in the zeal of some to get their
printed
> >eQSL .jpg files accepted, is that what's really important isn't the eQSL
> >"card" but the log data behind that card. Now come up with a way to
> >securely store and access that log data, so that any organization issuing
> >awards can electronically verify an award application without having to
> >check over QSL cards, and you've got something that's a real
breakthrough.
>
> I just uploaded ~37K of contest QSO's to eQSL for the past few
> years and see no major security problems with the way eQSL is implemented.
> In fact, it is actually more strict than I would be if I were answering
> QSL's directly where I would recognize problems like "wrong band", "wrong
> time" due to local time, "wrong date" for the contest, etc. eQSL does
> make it difficult to diagnose these problems but you can always reject
> the card and ask the sender to check his data again.
>
> I totally agree with Ron's statement above. I am personally aware
> of numerous attempts to submit false confirmations for 160 QSO's over the
> years and the ultimate test of these is not the quality of the printing,
> etc, but the QSO data which is in the log. If a QSO is in question, ARRL
> has on several occasions contacted the QSL manager to request actual log
> data to verify questionable QSL's. Making complete log data available
will
> make it VERY easy to catch erroneous confirmations and should improve the
> integrity of the system currently used at ARRL. In fact, I suspect the
> current system is not nearly as "clean" for most DXCC QSL's as it is for
> 160 confirmations which are checked at ARRL HQ with someone looking at
> a greyline map to weed out obvious problem QSO's. eQSL and LotW should
> make the system even better!
>
> I feel eQSL and LotW are major steps in the right direction for
> all of us. They will improve the integrity of awards and will especially
> make life easier for those of us making many contest QSO's who may not
> enjoy the QSL burden that comes with them.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|