I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest as well if anyone has
broken the rules and has been unmasked.
if someone did not break the rules, and is accused of having done so, has
clear and irrefutable evidence of not having done and is still qualified,
this I call it "decide in advance and deliberately to exclude someone from
the rankings."
about your sentence: "They usually have some pretty solid evidence. The
WRTC committee makes the rules for qualifying not CQ." well ... I can tell
you that in my case they have an ip that is not located in my area, which,
as belonging to a range of dynamic IP is in turn assigned to different
users on the network, which can not in any way attributable specifically to
me.
I have a contract with the static IP Internet provider signed three years
ago, an IP that never changes, and that is only assigned to my station.
Now I ask: "who have secure and unassailable proof of something?"
This is their strength, their luck: there are many people who can not
believe that the committee is acting improperly and therefore assumes that
they are always right, even in these cases as plugging your eyes or putting
your head under the sand like ostriches but it is not so
2017-02-21 4:43 GMT+01:00 Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>:
> I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest. That being said I'm 100
> percent sure that the CQWW contest committee doesn't take the decision to
> disqualify someone lightly. Especially if it's someone in a position to
> quality for a WRTC slot. They usually have some pretty solid evidence. The
> WRTC committee makes the rules for qualifying not CQ.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|