CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and WRTC

To: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and WRTC
From: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:42:09 -0300
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
That means precisely ZERO. Money can't buy fairness, and transparency costs
absolutely nothing.

If someone is disqualified, the evidence and explanation should be clear as
to leave no doubt. Otherwise it becomes arbitrary and leaves open the
possibility that the person in question has been treated unfairly.

Plain and simple.

Can we trust the contest committee, blindly, to be fair in application of
the rules? The answer seems to be at the very least in doubt. It is also
true that we are hearing only one side of the story but that is because the
other side chooses to remain silent.

This "self spotting" crackdown is especially troublesome because contest
club members are being told to spot fellow club members when they hear/work
them. If that gets flagged as "self-spotting" it can land a lot of folks on
the DQ list needlessly. (Personally I operate unassisted for phone
contests, and assisted for CW only with skimmer and I really don't spot
anyone, so it won't affect me but it will affect others.)

Ria
N2RJ

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Barry <w2up@comcast.net> wrote:

> The NFL is a business with a very large budget.
>
> Barry W2UP
>
>
> On 2/21/2017 18:17, Ria Jairam wrote:
>
>> To me the whole thing seems a bit inconsistent. I've seen rules violations
>> aplenty that were unnoticed, like stations calling for hours out of band,
>> 7125 LSB in ARRL DX there was a top north east station who did less than
>> 10
>> years ago, no penalties. Meanwhile something based on seemingly shaky
>> evidence gets a DQ?
>>
>> The NFL can show us video replays that they make calls on. Clearly it
>> works
>> for them. I don't see transparency as a bad thing, unless the original
>> poster is correct, in that this is really an unfair decision designed to
>> penalize some and not others.
>>
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:57 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Because I do not want the methods of they way they are finding cheaters
>>> exposed so that the cheaters can modify their behavior to beat the
>>> checks.
>>>
>>> Cheating is real it happens far too much and I am willing to bet that
>>> many
>>> people are still getting away with stuff.
>>>
>>> Either you trust those in charge or you don't.  If you don't then don't
>>> operate.
>>>
>>> If people would not cheat we would not be having this discussion.
>>>
>>> Asking friends to spot you is assistance.  Asking others in a contest to
>>> spot you is assistance.  Don't do it.
>>>
>>> W0MU
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/21/2017 4:31 PM, Roberto Rey wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't really agree with your assessment Jeff. Aren't we all friends
>>>> here? Why can't I discuss what happened to me with my fellow
>>>> contesters? Is
>>>> the contest committee the "Enlightened Ones" that never make a mistake?
>>>>
>>>> If I have nothing to hide and feel mistreated I will go and tell
>>>> someone:
>>>> Hey this happenend to me.. can you believe it? And the ones to tell my
>>>> story are my fellow contestors. Now if I am a fat cheater and get
>>>> caught,
>>>> wouldn't I just go and hide under the first rock I find and not make any
>>>> noise? But I have not cheated I will make some noise and make my case be
>>>> heard!
>>>>
>>>> I for one think there is something brewing in these DQs and somehting
>>>> has
>>>> to been done... Where there's smoke, there's fire...
>>>>
>>>> 73 de Rob HK3CW
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Clarke" <ku8e@bellsouth.net
>>>> >
>>>> To: "CQ-Contest Reflector" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:07 PM
>>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and WRTC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this is at least the 3rd time I can think of that someone who
>>>>> has been disqualified in a CQWW contest that has tried to plead their
>>>>> case
>>>>> on the contest reflector. This isn't the correct forum to do that and I
>>>>> don't think you're going to get you much sympathy. The issue should be
>>>>> private between the contest adjudicator and the station in question. I
>>>>> know
>>>>> in the past they have been willing to work with a station who they
>>>>> suspect
>>>>> broke the rules and maybe persuade them have their submitted log
>>>>> reclassified as a check log.
>>>>> We are hearing only one side of the story when the accused party posts
>>>>> something on the reflector criticising the contest sponsor. How do we
>>>>> really know what they are saying is really true? I'm not saying that
>>>>> the
>>>>> person in question broke a rule purposely. It could be something as
>>>>> simple
>>>>> as not understanding the rules that can get you DQed.
>>>>> The CQWW Contest committee consists of a bunch of well respected
>>>>> contesters that have been doing this a long time. They aren't going to
>>>>> go
>>>>> and DQ anyone for making one mistake. I believe when they see a pattern
>>>>> that is inconsistent with the rules is when they consider a DQ.
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>