CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Writing Up the DQ'd Stations / Penalties for Being Disq

To: Eric Rosenberg <w3dq@arrl.net>, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Writing Up the DQ'd Stations / Penalties for Being Disqualified
From: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:04:47 -0800 (PST)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> - Buried at the end of the 2007 IARU results in the
> March QST is a short listing of the station that
> were disqualified with word the effect that their
> entries were incompatible with their entry category.
>  
>   If the radio-sporting community is serious about
> controlling or eliminating cheating, wouldn't a more
> effective deterrent be to a) mention in the write-up
> -- where it will be seen and read -- the
> disqualified stations, and b) be explicit as to why
> they were disqualified?  "incompatible entries" is
> not explained and therefore has no meaning.

I think this is a good idea, particularly the second
part. Adjudication seems to be a gray area when the
topic of disqualifications arises. The contesting
community and definitely newcomers (myself included)
would benefit from a better understanding of the
process and repercussions. I have to believe that DQ
is an extreme action and that efforts were made to
clear up any potential errors before the results were
published...

Speaking of which, I don't see them under contest
results on the ARRL website. Are they posted anywhere
online yet?
> 
> - Add a penalty to the disqualification, if one
> doesn't exist now. There is no incentive for the
> DQ'd station to *not* try again next year.
> Technology being what it is (as evidenced by the
> release of SKIMMER) today and where it's going,
> there is no reason to expect the DQ'd station will
> change his ways (note that one of the DQ'd stations
> was RW3QC, who's CQWW C4M operation last year was
> disqualified).
>   A good penalty might be to sit it out -- NO
> participation at ANY level (operating SO, M/S, M/M,
> M/2) next year.  
> 
> Eric W3DQ
> Washington, DC 

That would be good for the contest sponsors, an
alternative would be to require a thorough examination
of any log that the DQed operator is involved in for
some period.

It's worth thanking the folks who have and continue to
develop log checking software. It's a real challenge
and has to be labor intensive. My hat is off to them.

73,
Julius

Julius Fazekas
N2WN

Tennessee Contest Group
TnQP http://www.tnqp.org/

Elecraft K2/100 #3311
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>