People are reading too much into this.
It was the same effect (in this contest) as a DQ, just without the harsher
penalties. It's similar to the red/yellow card system that was implemented.
In a wider context it was more lenient and I believe this was on purpose.
Give him a slap on the wrist rather than throwing the book at him. It has
been done before.
BTW for the snarky responses from Steve N2IC, W0MU and others, yes I can
and do read the rules, as well as answer the surveys when rule changes are
proposed. I've been licensed for almost 20 years now and I have scored in
most contests higher than W0MU actually, with plaques on my wall to prove
it. So I know a thing or two. :)
Anyway, don't read too much into what I'm saying. The basic premise is
there - it could have been a "full" DQ but they chose not to because
apparently they wanted to be lenient. C
Ria
N2RJ
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:48 PM, DXer <hfdxmonitor@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ria,
>
> I hear you...but based on what we know, I think there are differences
> between this case, and the others discussed on the list recently.
>
> In other cases, the info that reached the list did mention the suspected
> violation/s. We don't know about a violation in this case, up to now.
>
> >>The only difference is one looks better on paper for future endeavors.
>
> And this is the point, by calling it a DQ the OM is being put in the same
> basket as the other more serious violators. It may be deserved, may be not,
> we simply don't know.
>
> For reasons that only the OM and the CC know, a recording was not
> presented when requested, a case o non-compliance with post-contest rules.
>
> >> I'm sure they could DQ if they really wanted to.
>
> Nothing wrong with that, but it was not the case, it was a
> reclassification.
>
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>
>
>
> On 2017-03-04 10:11 AM, Ria Jairam wrote:
>
>> Oh it's not really a difference.
>>
>> It's like asking someone for their resignation versus firing them. Same
>> thing happens - the person is gone. The only difference is one looks
>> better on paper for future endeavors.
>>
>> So for all intents and purposes it's a DQ, just not in name. The CC is
>> being lenient. I'm sure they could DQ if they really wanted to. They've
>> done this for others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:01 AM DXer <hfdxmonitor@gmail.com
>> <mailto:hfdxmonitor@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Rudy and group,
>>
>> Serious question...it has to do with terminolgy. Is this really a DQ?
>> W4PA's message to CX2DK does not use the term DQ, but
>> reclassification.
>>
>> As you wrote below, there was no violation, but a non-compliance
>> situation.
>>
>> Not taking sides, but DQ seems to strong for what happened.
>>
>> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|