[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW SSB 2017 Effective DQ

To: Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org>, Jim Stahl <jimk8mr@aol.com>, Jim Stahl via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW SSB 2017 Effective DQ
From: Bob Kupps via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Bob Kupps <n6bk@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 01:51:10 +0000 (UTC)
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
 That is my understanding. I would bet that no one suspected of cheating has in 
the event ever 'proven' innocence by submitting a requested recording, and no 
one intent on cheating will be recording anyway (and probably the intent of 
this rule). IMO the rule would be clearer by replacing "intention" with 
"eligible", in the event there is suspicion and a recording is requested.. 
73 Bob HS0ZIA
    On Thursday, February 1, 2018, 11:31:44 PM GMT+7, Jim Stahl via CQ-Contest 
<cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:  
 Am I correct to assume that the CQWW Committee will not be listening to every 
moment of every recording made by every top five entrant? But rather they will 
focus on ones where there is already some reason to suspect some significant 
rules violation?

So why is it necessary for each top entrant to be able to prove they are 
innocent, rather than allowing, but not requiring, anybody to submit a 
recording in their defense as proof that any suspicions were unfounded? Is the 
Committee planning to make these recordings public, just as logs are now made 

And what will happen if an eighteen minute gap is discovered, when at a 
critical time the operator leaned over to adjust the amplifier and just 
happened to hit the wrong key on the recorder?

73  -  Jim  K8MR

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org> wrote:
> I think the point a few folks are making is that there are some casual 
> participants who are simply in it to have fun.  They may be interested in 
> their score, but they aren't necessarily striving to be better and better 
> contesters.
> For that crowd, the folks who fill the logs of the folks getting Top 5 
> finishes, you want as few impediments as possible to avoid discouraging them 
> from participating and sending in their logs.
> That's why limiting the requirement of a recording to those entrants who can 
> reasonably expect to be in the running for a top 5 finish makes a certain 
> amount of sense, assuming of course that there is some allowance for folks 
> who unexpectedly do well.
> I have no strong opinion on the merits of requiring a recording in the first 
> place, aside from noting that it's surprisingly easy to comply with.
> -- 
> Michael Adams | mda@n1en.org

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>