[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections

To: CQ-Contest com <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections
From: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:39:46 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Aug 12, 2009, at 12:44 AM, K0HB wrote:

> It's come to this.  Below is an excerpt from CQWW 2009 rules posted at
> http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/WWDXContestRules%20200973109.pdf
>   "A competitor contacted by the CQ
>    WW Contest Commmittee prior to the
>    contest must agree to a scheduled visitation
>    by a representative of the CQ
>    WW CC during the contest. Failure of
>    the entrant to respond to our correspondence
>    or to allow an observer full
>    access to the contest QTH will result in
>    the entrant's call being removed from
>    award eligibility for 5 years."

I had to go to the pdf, Hans, I thought you were pulling our  
collective leg. Sadly, you were not.

My thoughts:

1. These is one badly in need of a rewrite for sure. There was someone  
who mentioned following rules to the letter in another post. How d'ya  
do this one? To the letter, I read it as if the CQWW committee  
contacts you fro any reason at all, even to answer a question, you  
have to tell them you agree to a station inspection. So if you write  
to them about anything, and the write you back, you need to write them  
back again  telling them you agree to an inspection. There's no wiggle  
room at all in a strict interpretation of that rule.

2. They better send any correspondence via seriously official means,  
that offer tracking and verification. Email won't cut it. Especially  
since simply not responding gets a 5 year DQ. Read point 1 above. I  
get lots of email sent to me that I never get. I know because some  
time after the original one was sent, the sender manages to get  
through to me via another means.

3. I'd like to volunteer to be the worldwide station inspector. Let's  
face it - traveling the world and getting to see awesome stations  
would be itself awesome! I really want that job.

If I could offer a better (in my opinion) rule.

"A station competing in CQWW may be called upon to describe and  
document their station. Failure to do so or inaccurate description  
when asked will result in  disqualification."

Short, and to the point. It doesn't have the oomph of a we can come in  
at any time and check you out" statement, but that "inaccurate  
description" part is somewhat verifiable.

5 years? Pah. I take the gentleman's approach. I start out with trust,  
but anyone who betrays that trust is never trusted again. The shortest  
disqualification I hand out is forever.

Generalized rant:

It looks like the "everyone is cheating but you and me, and I'm not so  
sure about you" crowd is winning. I wouldn't cheer too loudly tho'.

Maybe the next target should be random drug testing and post contest  
station impounding. Win a class, and you lose your station so people  
can go over it to determine exactly how you cheated. NASCAR'ize the  

Perhaps I am hopelessly naive, but I still like the gentlemen's  
approach. The brave new world everyone cheats unless we keep em from  
cheating approach isn't going to work out like some envision. There  
will be less contesters as it becomes more draconian in approach. Big  
stations will have less casual - read most of us - ops to QSO with.

Finally, open my station up for an in-contest inspection? My wife  
doesn't want people tracking dirt all over the house, so I'll just  
have to find something else to do that weekend. 8^)

-73 de Mike N3LI -

CQ-Contest mailing list

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