CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimedscores.

To: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimedscores.
From: "Roberto Rey" <cwdude@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:33:26 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I agree just saying "I want a new scoring system because scores are unexplainable and people cheat" is irresponsible.. If somebody has proof of cheatingyou need to just flat out say it . ... .it's very easy to smear people's reputation..but you need to talk the talk!

73 de HK3CW Rob
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimedscores.


Oh?

Which scores?  Why do you think they're unexplainable?

A blanket assertion like this without details directly or indirectly smears, or could smear, the reputations quite a few operators.

While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd certainly want more information about what is allegedly happening before even beginning to consider revamps or changes, let alone agreeing to them.

73


On 12/04/13, Martin , LU5DX wrote:

I really hope at least some of you would agree that a revamp of the
observer program is needed.

There are scores that are really unexplainable.

Hopefully cheaters will get disqualified (again).

Vy 73.

Martin, LU5DX
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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