CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog

To: "Alex Malyava" <alex.k2bb@gmail.com>, <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog
From: "Roberto Rey" <cwdude@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:44:59 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Alex, That is so far fetched..its hilarious! Who would monitor a frqcy 24/7 hearing nothing for hours?

You are watching too much TV!

73 de Rob HK3CW
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Malyava" <alex.k2bb@gmail.com>
To: <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Cc: "Bob Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>; "Ed K1EP" <k1ep.list@gmail.com>; "cq Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>; "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog


"which off-air method of communication the team is suspected of using"

hmmm...

I would arrange a few CW frequencies and ask my friend back in the states
or Canada to monitor them 24x7.
Once in a while I will transmit a request for "spot me, the rate is slow"
and will notify him about upcoming band change.
All of this can be done in a form of innocent cq or fake qso with bogus
call sign...

   N0ONE de CO0LID... my radio is 14 years old, my power is 220 W

that's it - you just told you friend to spot you at 14.220 :)


On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:53 AM, ve4xt@mymts.net <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:

If there is, as apparently there is, evidence of multiple incursions by US stations into forbidden band segments, in violation of US law, why zero DQs?

Why isn't the law-and-order contingent clamouring for justice? If the
message is "break the rules and you'll be DQd," isn't US federal law a
significant rule Americans should be expected to obey?

Especially since many, it seems, persisted in completing the Q after
having been warned they were out of band. I can see if a station does it
once, and isn't warned. Hard to claim brain cramp if it's repeated, or is
done after a warning.

Is it not possible foreign hams who were DQd for less would see that as
bias?

Ed does point out significant inconsistency in the DQ of T48K. I am
curious, in light of Ed's claim that cellphone bills were provided as
evidence to the contrary, which off-air method of communication the team is
suspected of using.

If the committee is going to observe a lower standard of proof, shouldn't
that also apply to exculpatory evidence?

73, kelly, ve4xt

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 19:25, Ed K1EP <k1ep.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:36 PM, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK.  That's enough.
>>
>> There was apparent evidence of off-air communication with VE3XIN and
T48K
>> in approximately 60 suspicious spots of T48K.
>
> ​Off air?  ESP?  Just how did this happen?  We were on an island in a
> somewhat remote area with NO phone, NO internet, NO WiFi.  If you had a
> satellite phone, you would be put in prison. We submitted our cell > phone > bills with detail billing information for the weekend with no evidence > of > this. But Bob claims apparent evidence. Show us the evidence Bob. > Bob
> wants us to prove the negative.
>
>
>> To confirm this and other claims of innocence, SDR recordings of T48K
were
>> evaluated.
>
> ​So off the air is now on the air.
>
>
>
>> During this review, several instances of T48K requesting to be spotted
>> over the air, directly in violation of the rules were noted.
>
> ​There were three instances of a new contester asking for spots on his
> first shift in the contest.  We told him to not do it, he stopped, that
was
> it.  So if you break your rule, intentional or not, you are DQ?  How
about
> all the US stations we worked out of the US band? Clear evidence in > our
> log of the frequency.  Not one US station was DQd.
>
>
>>
>> At that point, no further investigation was necessary and the
>> Disqualification confirmed.
>>
>> Those are the key facts of the T48K DQ.
>
> ​Those are not all the facts and you know it. You are trying to > justify
a
> bad judgment call.
>
>
>
>>
>> There were no hunches, feelings or other unsubstantiated reasons for >> the
>> T48K DQ.
>
> ​You clearly state "apparent​".  That is a hunch.
>
>
>> No "friends" spotted anyone a few times leading to a DQ.
>>
>> 73,
>> Bob W5OV
>> CQWW Contest Committee
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, April 17, 2017 1:34 pm, Ed K1EP wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 2017 2:11 PM, "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is indeed time for some rules changes.  You cannot be DQing people
for
>>> the actions of others that we have no control over. If you have >>> proof >>> of collusion or cooperation great. To tell me you can DQ me because >>> my >>> neighbor thought he was doing something nice and spotted me a few >>> times
>>> is over the top.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well that is exactly what KR2Q is telling you and what he has done. >>> He
>>> will DQ a station because others have spotted him without that
station's
>>> knowledge or consent and the station has no control over or
communication
>>> with the spotter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>