Thanks for your reaction Doug. Your final remark is particularly true.
73, Maarten PD2R
Op zo 4 feb. 2018 om 14:11 schreef DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL <kr2q@optimum.net>
> It is not the practice of the CQWW Contest Committee to respond publicly
> to comments about individual entries.
> After discussion within the committee, the following short memo was
> deemed appropriate.
>
> 1. As with all requests for an audio file, this log contained a number
> of unusual events and QSOs.
>
> 2. Using our globally placed SDR network (which copied MM3AWD
> perfectly
> well) we did not hear
> those QSOs take place, so he was asked for a recording.
>
> 3. A recording was not provided, so the Contest Committee took the
> action of exercising Rule XII (C),
> which states: "If no recording is made available, the Committee may
> reclassify to an appropriate category,
> reclassify to Administrative Check Log, or disqualify the entry."
> http://cqww.com/rules.htm
>
> 4. Of the three options available, Administrative Check Log was deemed
> the most appropriate.
>
>
> We don't ask everybody in the "top 5" for a recording. We need
> something suspicious or curious.
> Please see the July 23, 2017 BLOG, item #4:
> http://cqww.com/blog/2017-cqww-rules-update-announcement/
>
> Here is an excerpt from the blog:
>
> [Editorial comment: It is important to note a few things about the
> “recording” rule. First, 2016 was not the
> first year for this rule. Second, the committee does not and will not
> request a recording simply because
> an entrant is in the top 5. The committee will request a recording when
> something suspicious or curious
> in the log is identified by the committee. This can be a statistical
> flag or something identified after human
> review. The committee does not request a recording in an attempt to “go
> fishing” for something “out of the blue”
> or “without reason.” If you are not breaking the rules or trying to
> stretch the rules beyond the letter and/or
> spirit of the rules, you are probably not going to be asked for a
> recording.]
>
>
> It would be helpful to any discussion on CQ-Contest if the commenters
> would be familiar with the CQWW
> Rules before jumping to and posting irrational conclusions.
>
> Doug, KR2Q
> on behalf of the CQWW Contest Committee
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|