> The truly sad part is that this discussion centers probably around less than
> 30 'suspects' (my word).
snip
> We used to be able to trust that most (and by
> that I mean the vast majority) of contestants were basically honest, and
> that errors were inadvertent, not deliberate attempts to skirt the rules.
snip
And so why is all this vitriol NOT directed towards the 'suspects' who
brought the sponsors to this unpleasant state of affairs? Surely CQ
WW is not doing this because they enjoy the thought of dispatching
stern-faced Contest Officers to stations around the globe.
The problem lies with those that cheat deliberately, extensively, and
with premeditation. They may respond to the threat of enforcement,
but more likely, they will respond to peer pressure applied by
individuals. The fact of cheating can be detected and punished. The
urge to cheat can only be reduced from within. It is up to us to
establish a radiosport culture that does not reward or accept
cheating, celebrating instead competition on its merits.
Bicycle racing and baseball are going through their own very public
catharses because of doping. We should learn from those sports as
they struggle to regain respect.
73, Ward N0AX
On 8/16/09, cq-contest-request@contesting.com
<cq-contest-request@contesting.com> wrote:
> Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
> cq-contest@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cq-contest-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Station Inspections (Hank Greeb)
> 2. Re: The Results of the 2009 Michigan QSO Party are now online
> (Eric Hilding)
> 3. Pictures from DR1A (Bernd Och)
> 4. NJ QSO Party Observations (Carol Richards)
> 5. Re: Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread (Marty Durham)
> 6. Re: Station Inspections (k8gt@mi.rr.com)
> 7. Re: K4BAI (Art Boyars)
> 8. Re: Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread (Charlie Gallo)
> 9. Re: Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread (Ron Notarius W3WN)
> 10. Re: Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread (Marty Durham)
> 11. Re: Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread (Ron Notarius W3WN)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:15:35 -0400
> From: Hank Greeb <n8xx@arrl.org>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <4A885AD7.2040009@arrl.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
> David:
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, I beg you to agree that I'm entitled to
> my opinion, and I'm sure the organizers of the contest are entitled to
> their opinion, and entitled to enforce it, whether you or I agree or
> disagree. If the vast (or even 50% vast) majority of the participants
> boycott the event due to this rule, the organizers may decide it wasn't
> a wise move. I personally doubt that it will affect the participation
> in any significant way.
>
> Chomping on me, or even venting your vitriol at the general populace who
> reads this reflector won't hack it.
>
> I shall now retreat to my hole and await the next barrage of flack.\
>
> 73 de n8xx Hg
>
> david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com wrote:
>> Message: 12
>> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:02:55 -0500
>> From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections
>> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>
>>
>> "Shucks, anyone can be competitive if he/she spends upwards past $50,000
>> or more on a station, towers, etc., and practices his/her skill in various
>> contests.
>>
>> Not to mention a quiet RF location, on a high hill or overlooking salt
>> water."
>>
>>
>> KY1V --> ABSOLUTELY TRUE
>>
>> "And, there's a big temptation in all cases to cheat."
>>
>> KY1V --> ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE, I have never, nor have any of my guests ever
>> <to my knowledge>, so much as thought about cheating. I/We do, however,
>> often think about how nice it would be to get 3 points for North American
>> QSO's instead of 2 points!!!
>>
>> "So why should hams complain if they are asked to have a monitor at their
>> station during the operation to make sure they are abiding by the rules?"
>>
>>
>> KY1V --> No one would complain if they were "asked", but that's not the
>> intent of the rule. The rules is clear...if "they" want to, and you don't
>> allow "them" to, you're automatically DQ'd for x years. The rule is
>> designed with the intent that only "known/suspected" cheaters would be
>> asked, therefore, it is assumed they will not cooperate, thus the penalty
>> clause for non cooperation.
>>
>> It's BS. Open logs are BS. If you want to see my logs, ask...perhaps I'll
>> let you. If you want to watch me operate CQWW ask, perhaps I'll let you,
>> but that's my choice, not the CQWW CC, the same people trying to beat me!
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> Personally, I don't think there's that much cheating going on. 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.
>>
>> Then there are the control freaks....don't even get me started on them!
>>
>> As a "NON CHEATER", I do not advocate the use of home invasions to satisfy
>> one amateur's need to observe another amateur win a contest fair and
>> square. And, it is MOST CERTAIN, the suspected cheater will never cheat
>> while the inspection is taking place!
>>
>> What a dumb rule!
>>
>> David ~ KY1V/6Y1V
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:28:46 -0700
> From: "Eric Hilding" <b38@hilding.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Results of the 2009 Michigan QSO Party
> are now online
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <007001ca1ea7$c6ae16b0$540a4410$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Jim, K1TN, wrote:
>
>>Wow! This contest write-up/report is as good as any I have ever seen.
>
> Gerry, K8GT, replied:
>
>>I agree. Dave, K8CC has been doing these reports for some years now,
>>perfecting and adding more polish each year. They are a pleasure to
>>read, and you can't stop until you've covered it all.
>
> Beyond impressive - a work of art and obvious labor-of-love by Dave,
> deserving of a prominent place in the Smithsonian. Outstanding !!!
>
> 73.
>
> Rick, K6VVA * The Locust
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:48:21 +0200
> From: "Bernd Och" <bo@boc.de>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Pictures from DR1A
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
> <B035595E01B2D041B633712F306B7BD4013B417F@EX01.local.domain-services.de>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> this is Ben, DL6FBL. I was very busy the past few weeks. If you are still
>
> waiting for a write-up of the DR1A antenna test on July 4, 2009: PSE QRX.
>
> At least our 20m antennas were working nicely in the IARU HQ contest.
>
> We managed 3831 QSOs in 24 hours on 20m/SSB for DA0HQ from here... J
>
> I plan to do the write-up within the next two weeks. I will be in SV9 then -
>
> at SV9CVY's place, enjoying my holidays on the beach, in the pubs, and
>
> maybe/probably (HAHA) - for some fun - as SV9/DL6FBL on the HF bands...
>
> CU !
>
>
>
> Today and yesterday I spent my time at our DR1A station. We are in the
>
> progress of putting up two 5-over-5 Stacks for 15 meters in two weeks.
>
> I made some pictures, and if you'd like to see them, here is the link:
>
>
>
> http://www.dr1a.com/DR1A-pics-090816.zip
>
>
>
> The file has about 5 MB and contains some 50 pics - unfortunately without
>
> comments. I have written comments to a (similar) photo album on my
>
> Facebook profile. If you'd like to visit me there, and read the comments,
>
> click here and confirm:
>
>
>
> http://www.facebook.com/DL6FBL <http://www.facebook.com/DL6FBL>
>
>
>
> 73 Ben
>
> DL6FBL
>
>
>
>
>
> Freundliche Gr??e
>
> Bernd Och
> Dipl.-Ing.
> WCT (WatchGuard Certified Trainer)
> WCSP (WatchGuard Certified System Professional)
> MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer)
>
> [Tel] 0661/9440-201
> [Fax] 0661/9440-100
> [Mobile] 0171/3831200
> __________________________________________________________
> Firmensitz: BOC Computersysteme GmbH * Chr.-Wirth-Str. 18 * D-36043 Fulda
> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Och, Thomas Heppe
> Amtsgericht/Handelsregister: Fulda 5 HRB 1290 - USt.-ID-Nr. DE811737681
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:54:31 -0400
> From: "Carol Richards" <n2mm@comcast.net>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] NJ QSO Party Observations
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <000a01ca1ecc$e65bfbb0$6501a8c0@yourx6k5fonaok>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello all....
>
> I decided to make an effort in this year's NJQSO party. Based on what I
> observeved:
>
> 1. Once again the qso party conflicted with NAQP and SARTG
> 2. I very rarely received a qso number higher that 1. This indicates a
> severe lack of participation by NJ stations.
> 3. There were no mobiles from NJ! Thus, very few of the 21 counties either
> didn't bother to get on and support their state qso party or just didn't
> know.
> 4. There was absolutely no organization by the sponsors whatsoever. Most
> other qso parties advertise their event, schedule mobiles or fixed stations
> to cover the
> counties, and make sure the qso party is appealing to those outside the
> state. It seems to me, that with only 21 counties, it should have been
> relatively easy to
> activate each one.
> 5. Unless major changes are made, NJQP will suffer the same fate of the
> mid-atlantic qso party and that will be a real shame.
>
>
>
> Carol
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:24:02 -0400
> From: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
> To: "'David Kopacz'" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>,
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <000001ca1eb7$e0ece370$a2c6aa50$@rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dave,
>
> No one is forcing you to allow anyone into your QTH. When 'you' decide that
> you want to enter into a contest (whether it be ARRL or CQ or some other
> sponsor) you decide that you are willing to abide by the RULES that the
> contest sponsor has printed...plain and simple.
>
> You have the options...you are in the driver's seat...and oh, by the
> way...no one is taking away ANY of your rights.
>
> If YOU decide you don't like the rules as stated by the sponsor then you
> have options:
>
> 1. You can still 'play' in the contest, maybe even inviting some top notch
> contesters who understand IN ADVANCE that you are not going to submit a log
> for competitive scoring because you disagree with the rules.
> 2. You can choose to submit your log as a 'check' log
> 3. You can choose NOT to enter the contest.
>
> You chose to build 6Y1V. ARRL and CQWW did not force you to build the
> station, just like they do not force you to enter the contest. YOU make that
> choice.
>
> You also have the choice to develop and sponsor your own contest that does
> not involve those rules that you dislike.
>
> Stop with the "it's my intellectual property argument"...it doesn't wash.
> AND, as stated before no one is forcing you to submit your log. If you want
> a seat at the big table then you have to play by the rules.
>
> As for what is it going to cost to send judges out to inspect stations and
> who will they send...what do you care? The cost doesn't come from you or any
> other participant (unless and until the sponsors decide to charge an entry
> fee to cover the costs, at which point you STILL have the control because
> YOU STILL have the choice.) and the reality is that the number of
> inspections or POTENTIAL inspections' will probably be less than 20-30.
>
> So, hope to see you in the WW this fall, and ARRL in the spring, always nice
> to have the competition when we're operating in the Caribbean...but, if your
> station is not in the contests, well that is your choice.
>
> 73,
> W1MD
> /PJ2
> V26F
> Etc..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:14 AM
> 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
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:31:19 -0400
> From: <k8gt@mi.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections
> To: Ken Claerbout <k4zw@comcast.net>, cq-contest@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <20090816223119.Y2NQ3.584242.root@hrndva-web21-z01>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Thank Ken, for some clear headed, calm and rational discussion on the
> subject. It has taken all these years to get to this point and now "the sky
> is gonna fall" ? ? ? Take a deep breath guys, there isn't a "Contest SWAT
> Team".
>
> 73, Gerry, K8GT
>
>
> ---- Ken Claerbout <k4zw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> =============
> Last post for me on this topic.
>
>>you had to agree to allow a total stranger into your home in order >to be
>> observed during the event!
>
> Lets look at the rule again. "..must agree to a potential visitation at
> any time during the contest by an observer appointed by the CQ WW Contest
> Committee." Sure in a case that warranted such, they could say this is the
> observer. Take it or leave it. But could they not also decide to appoint
> an officer of a local contest club or a mutually agreed to 3rd party,
> someone trusted by both sides? The idea of contest paratroopers dropping in
> during the middle of the night makes for some lively discussion. But
> seriously guys & gals, do you think it is that sinister? Do the 99% of you
> here honestly believe the committee is going to ask to send an observer to
> your station? I don't see the hysteria as being warranted. CQWW is the
> best DX contest we have in my opinion. If this option is needed to deter or
> deal with a few rotten apples and it improves the integrity of the
> competition, that's a good thing.
>
> Ken K4ZW (now QRT)
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:21:25 -0400
> From: "Art Boyars" <art.boyars@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] K4BAI
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <000a01ca1ed9$0a328520$0201a8c0@home>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I was privileged to operate with John (and a bunch of other top-notch guys
> -- "Let your house be a meeting place for sages; sit in the dust of their
> feet; and drink in their words thirstily." ) in a Curacao CQ CW MM
> expedition around 1979. I already knew of his skill, but I learned what a
> fine gentleman he is. Since then I have always stopped to work him in any
> contest. One time I even pulled the dusty microphone out of the box to work
> him in SS Phone (1 QSO, 1 Sect, 2 points).
>
> I think John could have passed the exam any time he felt it would help his
> score. Seeing as how he has been beating us >>without<< the Extra Class
> privileges, all I can figure is that we are all going to be moved down a few
> more spots in the standings.
>
> 73, Art K3KU
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:28:20 -0400
> From: Charlie Gallo <Charlie@TheGallos.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
> To: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com, 'David Kopacz'
> <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
> Message-ID: <749863717.20090816212820@TheGallos.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> On 8/16/2009 Marty Durham wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>> If YOU decide you don't like the rules as stated by the sponsor then you
>> have options:
>
>> 1. You can still 'play' in the contest, maybe even inviting some top
>> notch
>> contesters who understand IN ADVANCE that you are not going to submit a
>> log
>> for competitive scoring because you disagree with the rules.
>> 2. You can choose to submit your log as a 'check' log
>> 3. You can choose NOT to enter the contest.
>
> ....snip...
>
>
> There is a 4th option - You enter, you submit logs, etc - but if an
> inspector shows, you don't let them in, and take your lumps with the DQ, and
> the penalty.
>
> --
> 73 de KG2V
>
> For the Children - RKBA!
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:08:43 -0400
> From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
> To: "'Marty Durham'" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>, "'David Kopacz'"
> <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <2007B7D6F6D64CA99AB256B7807588ED@EvoD300V>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> So if I'm understanding you correctly Marty, what you're basically saying is
> that if the rules get changed after the fact (in this case in particular,
> after Dave has built his contest station and operated it successfully), he
> has no right to make an objection or try to discuss the matter further? He
> should just shut up and take it like a man?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Marty Durham
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:24 PM
> To: 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
>
> Dave,
>
> No one is forcing you to allow anyone into your QTH. When 'you' decide that
> you want to enter into a contest (whether it be ARRL or CQ or some other
> sponsor) you decide that you are willing to abide by the RULES that the
> contest sponsor has printed...plain and simple.
>
> You have the options...you are in the driver's seat...and oh, by the
> way...no one is taking away ANY of your rights.
>
> If YOU decide you don't like the rules as stated by the sponsor then you
> have options:
>
> 1. You can still 'play' in the contest, maybe even inviting some top notch
> contesters who understand IN ADVANCE that you are not going to submit a log
> for competitive scoring because you disagree with the rules.
> 2. You can choose to submit your log as a 'check' log
> 3. You can choose NOT to enter the contest.
>
> You chose to build 6Y1V. ARRL and CQWW did not force you to build the
> station, just like they do not force you to enter the contest. YOU make that
> choice.
>
> You also have the choice to develop and sponsor your own contest that does
> not involve those rules that you dislike.
>
> Stop with the "it's my intellectual property argument"...it doesn't wash.
> AND, as stated before no one is forcing you to submit your log. If you want
> a seat at the big table then you have to play by the rules.
>
> As for what is it going to cost to send judges out to inspect stations and
> who will they send...what do you care? The cost doesn't come from you or any
> other participant (unless and until the sponsors decide to charge an entry
> fee to cover the costs, at which point you STILL have the control because
> YOU STILL have the choice.) and the reality is that the number of
> inspections or POTENTIAL inspections' will probably be less than 20-30.
>
> So, hope to see you in the WW this fall, and ARRL in the spring, always nice
> to have the competition when we're operating in the Caribbean...but, if your
> station is not in the contests, well that is your choice.
>
> 73,
> W1MD
> /PJ2
> V26F
> Etc..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:14 AM
> 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
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:23:44 -0400
> From: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
> To: "'Ron Notarius W3WN'" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>, "'David Kopacz'"
> <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <005501ca1ee1$bec2c1f0$3c4845d0$@rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Not at all Ron, but all the discussion here seems to be on the PREMISE that
> CQ can't change their rules...or that there is some unwritten contract
> between the contester and the sponsor. We won't change the rules so you can
> continue to 'play'. I don't see ANYONE forcing you, me, Dave, or anyone else
> to invest our thousands of dollars to build stations...we do it (most of us)
> to have fun and maybe have a chance at winning.
>
> The truly sad part is that this discussion centers probably around less than
> 30 'suspects' (my word). Yet, there are those that are fanning the flames as
> if this is now a HOME invasion...come on guys. READ the RULE before you
> start saying things out of context.
>
> 73,
>
> Marty
> W1MD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net]
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:09 PM
> To: 'Marty Durham'; 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
>
> So if I'm understanding you correctly Marty, what you're basically saying is
> that if the rules get changed after the fact (in this case in particular,
> after Dave has built his contest station and operated it successfully), he
> has no right to make an objection or try to discuss the matter further? He
> should just shut up and take it like a man?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Marty Durham
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:24 PM
> To: 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
>
> Dave,
>
> No one is forcing you to allow anyone into your QTH. When 'you' decide that
> you want to enter into a contest (whether it be ARRL or CQ or some other
> sponsor) you decide that you are willing to abide by the RULES that the
> contest sponsor has printed...plain and simple.
>
> You have the options...you are in the driver's seat...and oh, by the
> way...no one is taking away ANY of your rights.
>
> If YOU decide you don't like the rules as stated by the sponsor then you
> have options:
>
> 1. You can still 'play' in the contest, maybe even inviting some top notch
> contesters who understand IN ADVANCE that you are not going to submit a log
> for competitive scoring because you disagree with the rules.
> 2. You can choose to submit your log as a 'check' log
> 3. You can choose NOT to enter the contest.
>
> You chose to build 6Y1V. ARRL and CQWW did not force you to build the
> station, just like they do not force you to enter the contest. YOU make that
> choice.
>
> You also have the choice to develop and sponsor your own contest that does
> not involve those rules that you dislike.
>
> Stop with the "it's my intellectual property argument"...it doesn't wash.
> AND, as stated before no one is forcing you to submit your log. If you want
> a seat at the big table then you have to play by the rules.
>
> As for what is it going to cost to send judges out to inspect stations and
> who will they send...what do you care? The cost doesn't come from you or any
> other participant (unless and until the sponsors decide to charge an entry
> fee to cover the costs, at which point you STILL have the control because
> YOU STILL have the choice.) and the reality is that the number of
> inspections or POTENTIAL inspections' will probably be less than 20-30.
>
> So, hope to see you in the WW this fall, and ARRL in the spring, always nice
> to have the competition when we're operating in the Caribbean...but, if your
> station is not in the contests, well that is your choice.
>
> 73,
> W1MD
> /PJ2
> V26F
> Etc..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:14 AM
> 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
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:03:53 -0400
> From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
> To: "'Marty Durham'" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <EED7C4DDFCA240E5B5E3DBE84116EB9D@EvoD300V>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Fair enough.
>
> I will say this about the rule -- both as it was originally presented and as
> it now appears on the web site:
>
> I understand the reasoning behind it.
> I understand the situation's it's meant to cover.
> I understand that the vast majority of contestants should have nothing to
> worry about regarding the implementation of that rule, if it ever happens.
>
> My concern is that the way the rule is written, it paints with a very broad
> brush. I am concerned about the Law of Unintended Consequences... that as
> the rule stands, it could potentially be misused.
>
> And frankly, I wonder how effective the rule (as written) really would be.
> Especially in view of what isn't stated at present...
> -- How is it decided or determined that an inspection is warranted?
> -- How far in advance does the notification occur?
> -- Who inspects and when? (And who pays for any costs incurred?)
> -- Exactly what is going to be inspected?
>
> These are not trivial concerns. The final implementation and procedures
> implied by the rule will determine how effective it really is.
>
> After over 35 years of contesting, be it on my own or as part of a club
> station or group effort, I am concerned that a basic premise has been
> overlooked in all of this. We used to be able to trust that most (and by
> that I mean the vast majority) of contestants were basically honest, and
> that errors were inadvertent, not deliberate attempts to skirt the rules.
>
> However, it appears that we have a small group of contesters who are more
> concerned with winning at any or all costs, who look for any advantage
> (honest or not), and who become pseudo-lawyers when challenged on some of
> what they did. It's actually gotten to the point where certain contesters
> actually encourage others to operate multiple stations in a "Multi-Single"
> operation; where certain operators are standing on the letter of a country's
> law instead of accepted good amateur practice to justify running SSB at the
> lowest end of 40 meters in a contest; and where the lack of faith and trust
> that certain contesters have in everyone else (and in some cases, making
> some of us wonder if THEY don't trust anyone else because THEY assume that
> everyone else operates like THEY do) is causing situations like this heated
> discussion and others like it to occur.
>
> And having said all that...
>
> Do you really believe that this rule will stop the cheaters? Or will they
> find a way around it... and if so, what's next?
>
> The real issue is that there is a breakdown in trust.
>
> I don't see this rule as doing much to fix that.
>
> 73
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Marty Durham
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:24 PM
> To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN'; 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
>
> Not at all Ron, but all the discussion here seems to be on the PREMISE that
> CQ can't change their rules...or that there is some unwritten contract
> between the contester and the sponsor. We won't change the rules so you can
> continue to 'play'. I don't see ANYONE forcing you, me, Dave, or anyone else
> to invest our thousands of dollars to build stations...we do it (most of us)
> to have fun and maybe have a chance at winning.
>
> The truly sad part is that this discussion centers probably around less than
> 30 'suspects' (my word). Yet, there are those that are fanning the flames as
> if this is now a HOME invasion...come on guys. READ the RULE before you
> start saying things out of context.
>
> 73,
>
> Marty
> W1MD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net]
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:09 PM
> To: 'Marty Durham'; 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
>
> So if I'm understanding you correctly Marty, what you're basically saying is
> that if the rules get changed after the fact (in this case in particular,
> after Dave has built his contest station and operated it successfully), he
> has no right to make an objection or try to discuss the matter further? He
> should just shut up and take it like a man?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Marty Durham
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:24 PM
> To: 'David Kopacz'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
>
> Dave,
>
> No one is forcing you to allow anyone into your QTH. When 'you' decide that
> you want to enter into a contest (whether it be ARRL or CQ or some other
> sponsor) you decide that you are willing to abide by the RULES that the
> contest sponsor has printed...plain and simple.
>
> You have the options...you are in the driver's seat...and oh, by the
> way...no one is taking away ANY of your rights.
>
> If YOU decide you don't like the rules as stated by the sponsor then you
> have options:
>
> 1. You can still 'play' in the contest, maybe even inviting some top notch
> contesters who understand IN ADVANCE that you are not going to submit a log
> for competitive scoring because you disagree with the rules.
> 2. You can choose to submit your log as a 'check' log
> 3. You can choose NOT to enter the contest.
>
> You chose to build 6Y1V. ARRL and CQWW did not force you to build the
> station, just like they do not force you to enter the contest. YOU make that
> choice.
>
> You also have the choice to develop and sponsor your own contest that does
> not involve those rules that you dislike.
>
> Stop with the "it's my intellectual property argument"...it doesn't wash.
> AND, as stated before no one is forcing you to submit your log. If you want
> a seat at the big table then you have to play by the rules.
>
> As for what is it going to cost to send judges out to inspect stations and
> who will they send...what do you care? The cost doesn't come from you or any
> other participant (unless and until the sponsors decide to charge an entry
> fee to cover the costs, at which point you STILL have the control because
> YOU STILL have the choice.) and the reality is that the number of
> inspections or POTENTIAL inspections' will probably be less than 20-30.
>
> So, hope to see you in the WW this fall, and ARRL in the spring, always nice
> to have the competition when we're operating in the Caribbean...but, if your
> station is not in the contests, well that is your choice.
>
> 73,
> W1MD
> /PJ2
> V26F
> Etc..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:14 AM
> 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
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 80, Issue 28
> ******************************************
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|