Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CX2DK\s+DQ\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CX2DK\s+DQ\s*$/: 31 ]

Total 31 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 08:04:54 -0500; To be clear, I don't know the guy and am not trying to defend him. I am commenting on what we know the facts to be. The facts are that the rules state that the audio recording is used to help adjudic; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00040.html (7,700 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 06:39:42 -0700; Fact not in evidence. Again, they don't ask for audio unless they have suspicions about the log. Apparently same concern, last year, no response. They let it go. You know the old saying - Fool me onc; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00041.html (7,778 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 08:15:17 -0700; You don't know what they wanted the audio for. W4PA did not say and does not have to say. Tell us, lets the cat out of the bag so to speak. What is troubling to me is that there is little trust that; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00046.html (9,033 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 10:27:36 -0500; There will be a lot less frustration vented out here if the process was principled and transparent; it is not. I am not referring to the mechanics of how cheating is detected. There seem to be no pri; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00050.html (10,338 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 08:36:49 -0700; *XIII. DECLARATION:* By submitting a CQ WW DX Contest log, and in consideration of the efforts of the CQ WW DX Contest Committee to review and evaluate that log, an entrant unconditionally and irrevo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00051.html (11,458 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Jorge Diez - CX6VM <cx6vm.jorge@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 20:47:31 -0300; Barry if you are not at K0RF, as single op you did very few hours of CQWW SSB in the last years, so is easy to you to say if you don´t like the rules, don´t play the game. Marcelo is building the bes; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00065.html (14,246 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 17:35:23 -0700; Jorge, You are correct. I no longer do competitive single op efforts. If I did, having spent the time and money to build a competitive station, I certainly would learn the rules and comply with them.; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00066.html (16,109 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: "James Cain" <jamesdavidcain@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:38:27 -0500; "Keeping suspicions private is a good thing. The more the CC reveals, the more info cheaters have to stay one step ahead and circumvent the ules." -- W2UP Better to let nine guilty people go free tha; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00100.html (7,972 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 08:22:38 -0700; Since they could not determine guilt, instead of a DQ they did the right thing, a checklog. They did their job. I don't see a huge line of people volunteering to help these people out. Just a bunch o; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00104.html (8,920 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:27:20 -0800; This quotation, about life and death, is totally inappropriate with respect to scoring of a contest. I agree with W4PA and other members of the committee. Rules have been established to help expose s; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00106.html (9,269 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Jim Stahl via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 12:53:20 -0500; Its not clear if CX2DK was suspected of cheating, or whether this was simply a case of his repeatedly not complying with a special requirement for all top scorers, to allow auditing of his effort is; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00108.html (9,954 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:08:08 -0700; Participants are not bound by any rules. Why is this a problem? Would you rather have fewer contacts? I don't mind working people with 1500 watt stations in NAQP. I don't get it. Lets have less fun?; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00111.html (10,300 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:32:07 -0700; The problem is that WE do not know why the committee wants the recording. W4PA has not said anything one way or another. Follow the rules. They are not random and you don't get to pick the ones you w; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00113.html (11,227 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:39:56 -0700; I'm regularly disappointed that a significant number of NAQP participants don't obey the rules that require that a single-op be non-assisted and no more than 100W, as indicated by obvious cluster-ins; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00114.html (9,171 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 21:43:04 +0000; Many of us don't sound like 100W even when we use 100W. Or rather, we don't sound like 100 watts and a piece of wire. So it's difficult to assume. Cluster inspired peaks - it could just be people "gi; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00117.html (10,641 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Jamie WW3S <ww3s@zoominternet.net>; Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 17:03:37 -0500; Maybe the infamous " crowd sourcing" from the last kerfuffle will resolve this, once the logs are made public..... _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00118.html (8,838 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:28:33 -0700; That will not happen. Check logs are not made public. 73, Steve, N2IC "Keeping suspicions private is a good thing. The more the CC reveals, the more info cheaters have to stay one step ahead and circ; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00132.html (9,664 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: "Jamie WW3S" <ww3s@zoominternet.net>; Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:06:51 -0500; but he didnt enter a check log, he entered as a participant.......even though it got reclassified, it SHOULD be public...... That will not happen. Check logs are not made public. 73, Steve, N2IC "Kee; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00163.html (10,557 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:34:17 -0500; I don't really see the logic in this. I thought the idea was to keep how the contest committee is finding cheaters private? Ria N2RJ _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00165.html (11,146 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK DQ (score: 1): Author: Jorge Diez - CX6VM <cx6vm.jorge@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 00:01:27 -0300; you are right Jamie here are all the logs, http://cqww.com/publiclogs/2016ph/ you can download CX2DK log 73, Jorge -- 73, Jorge CX6VM/CW5W _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest m; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00169.html (11,288 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]