It’s 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 desired by the CQWW Committee.
But to me throwing out his effort seems extreme. I’d suggest another penalty.
In my other hobby, bridge, a director (the adjudicator) has the authority to
issue an “adjusted score” in cases where things have been fouled up to the
point of not being able to have an accurate result. This is rare, but typically
is the result of misunderstanding or mental lapse, not from deliberate
cheating. (There are other ways to deal with suspected cheating, an even more
rare situation.)
In the case of CX2DK, an “adjusted score” sounds more appropriate. If
recordings are required for the top three continental scores, in the absence of
a recording give him an “adjusted score” of one point less than the third place
score from that continent. He still might win a country award with that score,
and it could reasonably used for WRTC qualification if the WRTC chose to do so.
He would still get credit for his effort, just not as much as would have
happened if he followed the rules of reporting requirements.
73 - Jim K8MR
> On Mar 6, 2017, at 9:12 AM, James Cain <jamesdavidcain@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "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 than to execute one innocent person.
> -- K1TN
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|