Hi Ria,
I hear you...but based on what we know, I think there are differences
between this case, and the others discussed on the list recently.
In other cases, the info that reached the list did mention the suspected
violation/s. We don't know about a violation in this case, up to now.
>>The only difference is one looks better on paper for future endeavors.
And this is the point, by calling it a DQ the OM is being put in the
same basket as the other more serious violators. It may be deserved, may
be not, we simply don't know.
For reasons that only the OM and the CC know, a recording was not
presented when requested, a case o non-compliance with post-contest rules.
>> I'm sure they could DQ if they really wanted to.
Nothing wrong with that, but it was not the case, it was a reclassification.
73 de Vince, VA3VF
On 2017-03-04 10:11 AM, Ria Jairam wrote:
Oh it's not really a difference.
It's like asking someone for their resignation versus firing them. Same
thing happens - the person is gone. The only difference is one looks
better on paper for future endeavors.
So for all intents and purposes it's a DQ, just not in name. The CC is
being lenient. I'm sure they could DQ if they really wanted to. They've
done this for others.
Ria
N2RJ
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:01 AM DXer <hfdxmonitor@gmail.com
<mailto:hfdxmonitor@gmail.com>> wrote:
Rudy and group,
Serious question...it has to do with terminolgy. Is this really a DQ?
W4PA's message to CX2DK does not use the term DQ, but reclassification.
As you wrote below, there was no violation, but a non-compliance
situation.
Not taking sides, but DQ seems to strong for what happened.
73 de Vince, VA3VF
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|