eHam Logo

 Home Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 My Profile

 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews

Contest Lists

Other Lists

 Mailing List FAQs

Site Information
 About This Site Team

Contesting Online Speak Out

Speak Out: DQ for cheating?

A reader wonders "After a study of the logs, several non-assisted entrants in the year 2000 running of CQWW were determined to have actually been using packet. What do you think about this and the CQWW committee's decision to allow these suspected packet cheaters to withdraw the logs instead of being disqualified?"

36 opinions on this subject. Enter your opinion at the bottom of this page.
[Speak Out Home Page]


<-- Page 3 -->

Anonymous on 2002-02-14
Times are changing. Everyone has some sort of Internet connection today. Allow everyone to use the packet and there will be no more problems with packet cheaters.

NJ3K on 2002-02-13
I have a small station, 100 watts and one wire antenna. I enjoy contesting when I can find the time. I like to do well, and find a way to do so, single op, single band .My main objective is to do better then last year and maybe place in the top 5 in my catagory.
Now if someone feels the need to cheat themself, (and thats who they are cheating) then they will. I have no idea how anyone could feel good about beating someone else knowing full well they cheated. Its alot like going out the night before deer season and shooting a big buck while using a spotlight. Then claiming they shot it during the season. It has to be a deep empty feeling of pride.

Anonymous on 2002-02-13
The real problem of Cq Magazine in the publishing the cheaters (with big and bold letters) is that there is always hams (&lawyers) in US who want to sue magazine after this coming public. This has already been close to happen.

Anonymous on 2002-02-13
DQ for cheating is a good thing if one can prove that cheating has actually occurred. But remember, to prove something is quite another matter than just suspecting.

Packet cheating problem is easily solved. Why not simply get rid of the limitation of not allowing packet? The assisted scores have consistently been lower than the non-assisted scores. Thus it is obvious that the limitation is unnecessary and the whole problem is artificial.

kr6x on 2002-02-13
I'm not sure I understand the criteria used to determine if spotting was used. A few years back I was a single op non-assisted signing N6UR (now W6RU) during several DX contests. Terry's local radio club used his callsign for their 2M DX spotting (voice) repeater. In addition to allowing voice spots of DX, a computerized voice announced spots received over packet. So Terry's callsign (the same one I was contesting with) was logged into the packet net 24/7. And Terry would come into the shack and pick up messages onscreen throughout the contest. Now, I could have walked across the room and looked for spots, but actually never even felt tempted. Could I have been accused of breaking the rules by the standards used here?

Anonymous on 2002-02-12
How many operators, participating in contests, stick to contest rules, legal limit power and how many do some creative logging after the contest? I guess that some people simply can't have it that there are better operators with smaller antenna systems and less power, putting down good scores. The first type is stressed out and the second type is enjoying him or herself during the contest. ON4CFZ

n2tx on 2002-02-12
DQ the log and post the the recipients call in the DQ column. Pushing the envelope is one thing, outright cheating is another. Here's an example of why I feel the DQ Column has a place. Unfortunately things like this happen.

I have a cluster node here at my place. I had one fellow who felt compelled to self spot himself in hope of generating callers. I along with a few others informed this guy on many occasions that this was against the rules. The newer node software allows a sysop to eliminate self spotting, so I enabled this feature. Now this fellow logs in with his sister's call and spots himself. I asked him to again refrain from this but it continues and to boot submits a log as unassisted.

Guess it could've been worst... Operate 27 hours of log time with a KW and turn log in for QRP and knock the poor soul who spent 48 hours doing QRP into 2nd place..Please use BIG dark font for the very few who deserve the DQ column

Anonymous on 2002-02-12
In WPX RTTY several stations were moved from one category to the other. Maybe from SingleOP to MultiOP or from SingelTX to MultiTwo. I think this much better than just DQ. In this case just move from unassisited to assisted and everyboddy is happy.

Is like death penelty - If you find out later that the penelty is wrong, it's just a bit to late. ;-)

Anonymous on 2002-02-12
There is long list...We know several ways of cheating:

Power, Internet, Packet (Self Spotting),SO but Multi OP/different location...Who? Check it out in last CQ Mag!

K8DD on 2002-02-12
Not real hard to become suspicious -
1. Take the log from a logging program where the op used radio control. Match a string of QSO's on vastly different frequencies. Match the frequencies and times with spots from one of the DX PacketClusters where the op did nothing but chase spots for a period of time.
2. Watch the "Please spot ....." announcements and see if the originator turned in a SO or SOA log.
I'm sure there are more .....

Let them withdraw, but publish the withdraws next to the check logs.

<-- Page 3 -->

Enter your opinion about DQ for cheating?:

Your Opinion:

From: Anonymous

To post as yourself, new members go to our sign up page. Members can log in here.

The opinions expressed within Contesting Online Speak Out are those of the contributor, and not necessarily that of Contesting Online. Contesting Online simply provides a forum for people to express their opinions on various amateur radio contesting subjects of interest.

Do you have an idea for a Speak Out topic? Email our Speak Out Manager with your ideas.