To me it is all about honesty & integrity. Assisted vs not assisted is no
different than HP vs LP. People should be honest and I'd rather not win and
have played by the rules vs win and cheat. I guess it's why in golf I play
the ball where it lies or if I hit a poor shot and drop and hit another
shot, I play ball from the first shot and not the 2nd. Sure, I can always
claim a lower score I didn't really have, but for what reason would anyone
do that?
I don't really care what others do and though it's a competition, it's a
competition I have with myself to improve upon on previous attempts. Sure,
one always compares themselves to others but I do that to see why someone
did better than me. How did they have the same # of contacts and so many
more mults? Or did they work more on a band that provided a higher
multiplier?
I don't think we should alter categories for the primary purpose of someone
cheating and because we can't catch them everyone gets lumped together. I'd
rather that not be the reason.
That's all I really have to say on this type of discussion.
K2DSL - David
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Collins, Graham <CollinG@navcanada.ca>wrote:
>
> Good day all,
>
> I am not singling Mark out but I am using a snippet of his email (see
> below) as an example of a number of similar comments I have heard or read on
> this subject.
>
> DX clusters, spotting, packet (whatever the form) is just another tool that
> some choose to use and others not. I don't now nor for the foreseeable
> future will I operate ASSISTED in a contest. That is my personal choice.
>
> I have for a very long time been contemplating on how you can determine
> whether someone has used ASSISTANCE by scrutinizing their log. The simple
> relationship of a "SPOT" for station XYZ at time X and an entry in
> competitors log Y minutes later is at best circumstantial. Even if the only
> contacts that competitor made where always some minutes after a "SPOT" for
> those stations appeared it would still be circumstantial; suspicious perhaps
> but not incontrovertible proof of using ASSISTANCE. Perhaps in a multi/multi
> operation it might be even more suspicious and more the likely but still
> absolute proof.
>
> I am sure this topic has been discussed before (ad nauseam) and there must
> be some documentation of some sort by Contest organizers that state their
> position and methodology in making such determinations but I have been
> unsuccessful in finding same. Does anyone have any pointers to such
> documents or discussions?
>
> CQ has been conducting a survey of late and one of their questions has to
> do with the idea of combing ASSISTED and NON-ASSISTED into one category. I
> take this as a sign that it is very difficult to police this particular
> rule; difficult to the point of being near impossible.
>
> Seems to me that ASSISTED or NOT-ASSISTED is splitting hairs - some choose
> to use a tool and others not, much the same as some choose to log on a
> computer and others on paper. Perhaps there needs to be categories for
> "COMPUTER LOGGED" and another for "PAPER LOGGED"; after all, those that
> choose to log on a computer have an unfair advantage over those that choose
> to log on paper.
>
>
> Cheers, Graham ve3gtc
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:
> cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mark Luhrman
> Sent: September 21, 2011 17:06
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Cheating and bad journalism
>
> <much clipped>
>
> On several occasions while I was using packet in the assisted category, I
> saw hams sometimes jump on these spots within 2 mins. After I spotted the
> stations. And then later claim unassisted.
>
> <much clipped>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|