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
> "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.
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.
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