CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Committee blog post - audio recording

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Committee blog post - audio recording
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:02:14 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Tue,4/18/2017 1:33 PM, Gerry Hull wrote:
I end up winning. Am I
disqualified because we did not record?

All of these scenarios defy logic. The CQ committee has the RIGHT to request a recording. That doesn't mean that they WILL unless they suspect that something is rotten in Denmark (not a slam on Denmark, simply quoting Shakespeare. :)

And the scenario of some "fan" almost immediately finding the station they admire on a new frequency in a crowded band time after time doesn't compute. Remember -- this is SSB, T48K was in Cuba, the spotter was in VE3, where he's likely to be hearing EU, USA, and SA. And that still doesn't excuse the violation of the operator asking for spots.

A recording is one tool to expose and/or verify cheating. I seriously doubt that the log checking team has time to examine the recordings of everyone at the top of a category, especially a 48 hour contest.

I'm pleased to see some cheaters DQed, and offer my thanks to the team of log checkers that do the heavy lifting to do so.

73, Jim K9YC


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

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