Live video cams require non amateur radio transmissions. That is prohibited
by the rules. If the rules are changed that every competitor must also use
the Internet then it is no longer an amateur radio event .
Also, if the rules were changed to mandate web cams, but allow for
exceptions for areas where the Internet is bad is practical. I live in
rural France and at times my speed would never support a web cam. I would
bother to enter a contest and mid way have the Internet slow down or cease,
and that means I cannot continue operating, forget it.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:14 PM
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
>
> I'm not hijacking the thread. The underlying core of both subjects are
> the same.
>
> Open logs AND live station inspections are BOTH part of the same course
> of direction being taken by the CQWW contest committee to quell
> suspicions of cheating.
>
> Keeping the two subjects separated only serves to isolate the
> incremental changes of stripping away an amateur's privacy.
>
> I'm not going to let that happen, because once they discover it's too
> expensive to send people to all the cheaters stations <not to mention
> the fact these inspectors can no longer operate themselves> they are
> going to force us to have live cameras in our stations/homes for all to
> see.
>
> In our case, that can't happen because our Internet is so unreliable
> we're lucky to keep packet up and running. The 6Y1V station is finally
> competitive in the M2 category of CQWW despite the 1 point deficit for
> North American Q's. It's likely someone will eventually suspect us of
> cheating, especially if we ever win!
>
> David KY1V/6Y1V
>
> --------------------
> Stop it !
>
> We had the open logs discussion ad nauseum less than a year ago !
>
> Please, no more hijacking of threads !
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
> Paul O'Kane wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
>>
>>> It's BS. Open logs are BS.
>>
>> Really? I believe open logs are one of the most welcome changes
>> in recent years.
>>
>>> If you want to see my logs, ask...perhaps
>>> I'll let you.
>>
>> Thanks, but we don't need to ask. When you enter CQWW your
>> logs are on the web for everyone to see.
>>
>>> Think about it...if "THEY" weren't "THEMSELVES" participants
>>> in the very same contest for which "THEY" intend to enforce
>>> "THEIR" silly catch the cheater rules, none of this would
>>> matter!
>>
>> Looks like paranoia to me. THEY are out to get someone :-)
>>
>>> Personally, I don't think there's that much cheating going on.
>>
>> Personally, I think there is that much cheating going on, and
>> I welcome station inspections and open logs.
>>
>>> Perhaps it is more likely that there are a lot of people that
>>> are paranoid, delusional and can't quite figure out why they
>>> are getting beat, so they conclude that everyone else must be
>>> cheating.
>>
>> Yes, that's me. Paranoid, delusional and a poor loser :-)
>>
>>> As a "NON CHEATER", I do not advocate the use of home invasions
>>
>> Ah - the power of paranoia, to make station inspections become
>> home invasions.
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|