[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX Contest?

To: "'Terry Zivney'" <objectiveuser@yahoo.com>, "'CQ-Contest Reflector'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX Contest?
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:48:32 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
OK, so let me see if I get this straight...

We have here a legally and properly licensed station, that has been such and
been using their call for decades.  The station is not a pirate, it is not a
special event or commemorative station as such.  And it's not exactly a
unique prefix.

So how does it fall undr V.C.2?

Because it is not licensed by the FCC.  Even though the station has
documentation showing that because the World Bank building, it's location,
is under UN not US jurisdiction, and thus can not and should not hold an FCC

And therein lies the fallacy in your argument.  Even the the World Bank
building is not recognized by the ARRL for DXCC purposes, it IS
internationally recognized as a UN jurisdiction within the United States.

Therefore, IMHO, 4U1WB properly submitted their log.  They are located
within the United States, but their license jursidiction comes from the
United Nations, both of which are properly reflected.

I find the argument that "nobody noticed" before to be a bit fallacious.
Again, this is not an oddball that's shown up, it is a contest station that
has operated in MANY contests over the years.  Whose fault is it that nobody
noticed that the wording of the rule did not properly allow for legitimate
stations like this?

And no matter how one argues the technicalities behind a "disqualification",
throwing a DQ on the 4U1WB team is not only extremely unfair, but damaging
to their reputation.  It reflects badly (whether intended to do so or not)
not just on the station but the operators.  

And what of the consequences of a DQ?  Is not the station now excluded from
anything other than a check log for a period of time?  Over not even a
technicality, but an overly and ridiculously strict interpretation of a rule
that was clearly intended to ensure that stations operating under the rules
are properly licensed, which (again) 4U1WB was and is?

Will this rule as it currently stands be applied in the future to 4U1VIC?
Or TP2CE?  

No Terry.  IMHO, you have made a huge mistake.  You have improperly implied
a rule due to at best an extremely strict interpretation that has never been
done before, and one that other contests that have the same or similar rules
has never applied before.  In doing so, and because the DQ is in print, you
have damaged the reputation of the station and the operators.  Rather than
continue to justify it, I believe you should own up to the mistake,
apologize, correct the records immediately, and immediately & without delay
follow up on your promise to fix the wording so that this never happens this
way again.

73, ron w3wn

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Terry Zivney
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:02 PM
To: CQ-Contest Reflector
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX Contest?

 Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX Contest?

As Masa, AJ3M, noted in his posting about the disqualification of 4U1WB in
the 2017 CQ WPX SSB contest, I informed him that:

"4U1WB violated rule V.C.2: 

2. Special event, commemorative, and other unique prefix stations are
encouraged to participate. Prefixes must be assigned by the licensing
authority of the country of operation.

4U1 is not assigned by the FCC, the licensing authority of the USA, which is
what the log of 4U1WB showed as the country of operation."


The WPX contest rule cited clearly states that the callsign must be assigned
by the licensing authority. The FCC did not assign the callsign, and has no
authority to issue 4U1WB callsigns. Thus, the station did not operate in
compliance with the existing contest rules.

Since 4U1 prefixes can be in multiple countries, rule V.C.1 would also
The DXCC list includes 4U1UN and 4U1ITU as separate entities. So, the 4U1
prefix does not denote the country of operation. This rule states:

"A station operating from a DXCC entity different from that indicated by its
call sign is required to sign portable." Because the 4U1WB callsign does not
reflect the DXCC entity of USA, it is required to sign portable.

I did not write these rules, but was charged with interpreting and enforcing


Why was 4U1WB disqualified in 2017 but not in prior years?

I cannot answer why 4U1WB was not disqualified previously. However, I can
state that my practice, as I believe is true of most contest directors, is
to focus most of my attention on the larger scores. 4U1WB's score was less
than 1 percent of the highest score in his category, so it was not eyeballed

I was proofreading the line scores and top scores boxes for the CQ WPX SSB
contest shortly before CQ's submission deadline.  These scores change every
day as new logs are received. I try to let this process continue as long as
possible to ensure the most accurate log checking. While doing the
proofreading, I noticed 4U1WB/3 listed in a top scores box. This seemed odd,
so I looked further. Was this 4U3 or 4U1/W3? What did he send? Reference to
his log showed he sent 4U1WB and was located in MDC so it was obviously in
the USA. 
This resulted in my checking the rules about portable callsigns and the rest
is history.


I will change the WPX rule V.C.2 for 2018 to reflect a new and improved
wording, "Prefixes must be issued or permitted by the licensing authority of
the country of operation."

This revised rule will fit the case of 4U1WB, who has a letter from the US
Department of State saying that the licensing authority (FCC) has no problem
with this operation. 

I don't believe it was wrong for me to enforce the published rules. The fact
that all published rules have not been (and maybe even are not) always
enforced does not mean that they can safely be ignored.

As an example, the  CQWW contest has always had a rule that the exchange
includes the zone, yet for many years the directors of the CQWW did not
penalize operators for incorrectly reporting the exchange.
Indeed, one of the former directors published an article in CQ Contest
magazine saying that the exchange would not be checked! Yet, in recent years
the exchange has been checked and operators penalized for incorrectly
recording the exchange.  No advance notice was given of this change in
practice.  It was always in the rules and now the rules are enforced.


Resolution of problem

1) Rule V.C.2 will be clarified for the 2018 WPX contest as noted above
2) In the spirit of good sportsmanship, the 4U1WB 2017 logs will be removed
from disqualified status and his corrected scores entered in our online
3) An errata will be posted on the CQWPX.com website

I am so sorry that this experience caused Masa grief. I respect both Masa
and his contest club. I meant no disrespect to either Masa or his contest
club over this situation.


Terry N4TZ, CQ WPX Contest Director

This message was posted at 1701 UTC, October 27, 2017
CQ-Contest mailing list

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

CQ-Contest mailing list

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