What would be even more interesting would be the reaction of the non-contester
community to the imposts
Mandatory recording - when this was put to a VK Facebook group when it was
introduced several part timers said they will not be bothering in future - bang
immediate reaction - and I have not seen them enter a log since.
Maybe need an observer? Seriously who is going to pay for that?
The rules need to be enforceable and have no challenge - If you are going to
randomly expel an entry for no recordings then ALL ENTRANTS who qualify for
certificates MUST have the same onus placed upon them.
The non- contesters are the source of new potential contesters - a post to a
DXer group would be very interesting to see the reactions - if we want to grow
contesting we need rules that are enforceable and make sense - A rule based on
a potential placement is a really dumb rule that would put off a lot of part
timers.
73
Trent VK4TS
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Notarius W3WN
Sent: Tuesday, 30 January 2018 12:59 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW SSB 2017 Effective DQ
If I may be permitted...
I think in all of the hand-wringing regarding the allegations of past
wrong-doing, use or misuse of cluster/RBN spots, capabilities of the newest
equipment, etc., etc....
One other important point seems to have been overlooked. Whether or not one
feels that everyone should record their contest operation, or how one feels
about whether or not an operator has (deservedly or not) painted the
metaphorical target on their back.
IF an operator, who was being competitive but was not actively trying for "Top
5" status, just happens due to other unforseen or unplanned circumstances to
place in the Top 5 in their category... and this operator did not record his
operation... shouId this operator then be penalized by reclassification or
removal from the Top 5 for not having this recording?
This is not, IMHO, a trivial question. There are many reasons or circumstances
that could cause this event to happen. I won't belabor all the possibilities
(some are pretty unlikely but not impossible), but the simplest one that comes
to mind is that someone gets "the itch" and in the course of the contest starts
to really do well, much more so than they had anticipated.
The rules do not require all submitting logs to have a recording available...
only those who "intend" to finish at the top. Clearly the intent was that only
the most competitive ops, who would probably do so anyway, have this as a
requirement. The casual op, who might decide to skip the contest if the
requirements get too onerous, is not explicitly required to do so.
Now clearly, if someone alleges over time (say, 3 or more contests) that they
"just happened" to finish in the Top 5 but hadn't "intended" to, well, I'd
raise an eyebrow at the unlikely coincidence as well. To say the least. Nor
am I trying to suggest that when there is clear indications of what the real
"intentions" are that a contest committee shouldn't investigate further.
Circumstances, and circumstantial evidence, does matter.
But in general... I would suggest that absent hard evidence to the contrary,
and allowing for circumstances and past behavior, if an operator does, pure and
simple, get lucky, they should not be penalized. Not when the rules permit a
"gray area" to exist.
73, ron W3WN
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.contesting.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcq-contest&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce0e74e4b283c4bf29f3d08d5672a842d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528354657077026&sdata=rmjw%2Bo9JmeDoUxhasOG1GPNKEGh1xZEyNpB1sK8I4nE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|