CQ WW Crackdown: Five DQ's Issued In 2008 CQ WW SSB As Top Teams Tossed Out By Jamie Dupree NS3T radio-sport.net Posted July 27, 2009 In one of the most sweeping series of DQ decisions ever issued fo
73 Al 4L5A _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
The responses from those who were DQ'd offer interesting insight into their attitudes toward cheating. These folks admit intentionally and blatantly violating an important contest rule, thereby attem
And then there are those who do not bother logging "zeroes" that might need them for multipliers.I had record attempting, unusual record breaking entry in CQ WW CW in 40m non-assisted, single OP, no
Dear Dave and others, There is probably some misunderstanding. One part is missing on radiospot.net. On 6400 qsos we had 12qsos under violation of max 2-3min. I checked log my self and found those vi
I am not a log checker but am interested in how this works. I can only assume that if someone made 6400 contacts and by mistake had twelve 10 minute rule violations the thing to do would be to submit
There is no excuse for deliberately altering the log times. That is cheating pure and simple. As I read the rules, had the logs been submitted as is, they would have just been reclassified to M/M wit
Agreed. A friend of mine joined me for a M/S effort in the 2008 CQ WW CW contest, and our UBN report shows we were dinged for ten violations of the ten minute rule. I checked our log carefully (which
I don't know how they determine this. Do they look at the times in other peoples' logs? What if you work several people in a row whose clocks are all off by a few minutes? It could happen, no matter
I would think that if a given station's clock was off, be it by a minute or 5 or 10, all of it's QSO's would also be off. So if it appears, when matching logs up, that QQ1Q was consistently off by 2