I think it would be simpler than that ..
There should be a high standard for a DQ ..something close to "Guilty Beyond a
reasonable doubt." Log padding is easily discernable as UT5UGR found out ..and
the example of KV4FZ where what is claimed is impossible would be another
example ..but the benefit of the doubt goes to the "defendant." None of us
other than whoever is on the CQWW committee and the affected ops know the full
story, but ..given that this IS a sport where pride is the prize, "enforcement"
needs to have a light hand, otherwise, this type of argument is going to
dominate over actually having fun.
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of W0MU
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:04 PM
To: Jamie WW3S <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Kelly Taylor <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and WRTC
I read the book. I thought it was an ok read, but really fell short in
explaining the reasoning behind that decision. I suppose it was done that way
to protect those involved.
Not only to make that decision to find out later that the contact actually
existed. What exactly did they think happened there? Did that team have some
sort of clandestine sched with an SV5 and then told him to work a few other
They had the proof in a recording. What more would they need. Why the doubt?
Who cast the doubt and for what reasons? I was not really paying attention to
radio at the time was there ever an apology or statement from the WRTC folks?
These questions and answers really should have been in the book.
On 2/21/2017 4:54 PM, Jamie WW3S wrote:
> Read the book Contact.....Good read....There was an audio recording there
> also, QSO got thrown and it changed the results of last wrtc......
> On Feb 21, 2017 12:20 PM, Kelly Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Mike’s right: we only have one side of the story, and we may never get, nor
>> ever be entitled to get, the other side.
>> That said, the availability of IP spoofing is not proof of guilt, just as
>> claiming a self-spot came from a different IP isn’t proof of innocence. If
>> his friends verify his claim, is that enough?
>> That an audio recording wasn’t proof enough to nullify a claim of having
>> arranged a QSO is interesting, however. As is the OP’s claim every other
>> complaint was resolved, except for two that resulted in no points but also
>> resulted in the DQ.
>> I’m also struck by wondering how likely it is a truly guilty party would air
>> an unjustified grievance, considering it is highly unlikely a contest
>> committee would buckle to such pressure.
>> Some of the vehemence directed towards eliminating cheating reminds me of
>> William Roper, from A Man for All Seasons, who would lay flat all the laws
>> of the land to get at the devil.
>> I’m not trying to impugn the committee nor impugn nor exonerate the original
>> poster. But it is all something worth thinking about going forward.
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 8:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I can't believe people cheat in radio contests. Shame on them. Ops that
>>> are fantastic padding logs, power violations too many to mention, remote
>>> receivers across the globe, self spotting and on and on for what?
>>> A 50 dollar wooden plaque or a piece of paper with fancy lettering on it.
>>> Once again we have heard one side of the argument. Does anyone know what
>>> proof CQ has in this case. Maybe there is much more to this story.
>>> In computer gaming, every time a cheater that has been caught who goes
>>> public to argue his case, each and every case that person was proven to be
>>> in the wrong. Going public is the last hope to get a bunch of sympathy
>>> from people that have ZERO facts.
>>> For the record IP spoofing is incredibly easy. Who cares if you have a
>>> static address. It means nothing and proves nothing. The young hacker
>>> modding crowd have been using IP spoofing for years and years.
>>> Please stop trying to justify bad behavior.
>>> On 2/21/2017 8:17 AM, Alessandro Gromme wrote:
>>>> I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest as well if anyone
>>>> has broken the rules and has been unmasked.
>>>> if someone did not break the rules, and is accused of having done
>>>> so, has clear and irrefutable evidence of not having done and is
>>>> still qualified, this I call it "decide in advance and deliberately
>>>> to exclude someone from the rankings."
>>>> about your sentence: "They usually have some pretty solid evidence.
>>>> The WRTC committee makes the rules for qualifying not CQ." well ...
>>>> I can tell you that in my case they have an ip that is not located
>>>> in my area, which, as belonging to a range of dynamic IP is in turn
>>>> assigned to different users on the network, which can not in any
>>>> way attributable specifically to me.
>>>> I have a contract with the static IP Internet provider signed three
>>>> years ago, an IP that never changes, and that is only assigned to my
>>>> Now I ask: "who have secure and unassailable proof of something?"
>>>> This is their strength, their luck: there are many people who can
>>>> not believe that the committee is acting improperly and therefore
>>>> assumes that they are always right, even in these cases as plugging
>>>> your eyes or putting your head under the sand like ostriches but it
>>>> is not so
>>>> 2017-02-21 4:43 GMT+01:00 Jeff Clarke <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>>>>> I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest. That being said
>>>>> I'm 100 percent sure that the CQWW contest committee doesn't take
>>>>> the decision to disqualify someone li
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list