Thanks,
There are other means to determine if a contact were made such as
attempting to contact those people directly. Reading between your lines
these contacts are from stations that did not submit a log and probably
did not work others stations and happen to be multipliers, welcome to
log padding 101.
Instead of the generic email why not tell the guy what the problem is
and allow him/her the opportunity to provide proof of contacts or allow
them to dig themselves a deeper hole?
Looking at this log in particular it is interesting to note that in his
CW entry all contacts in t he log had the exact frequency up until 0921
on day two, where it stops. In his posted SSB logs there are no exact
frequencies listed.
Day one includes a contact for RA7A on 20 meters in between contacts on
40 and 80? Curious.
It is interesting to note that a QRP station was able to have some
decent runs on 14.080 and some other prime places low in the band. He
was a mult which helps.
It is hard to discern which qso's might be questionable in his log
without being able to determine which contacts might be uniques.
I think the issue is that we the participants would like a bit more
transparency and details. Why should the community have to get up in
arms before the committee actually tells the guy what the problem is?
Maybe you did and he failed to let us know that little detail. This is
a hobby and not the secret FISA court, if you believe strong enough in
your beliefs he padded a log then says so. If you think the guy
cheated then DQ them by all means and we can move on.
Just my thoughts.
W0MU
On 2/4/2018 4:27 AM, DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote:
It is not the practice of the CQWW Contest Committee to respond
publicly to comments about individual entries.
After discussion within the committee, the following short memo was
deemed appropriate.
1. As with all requests for an audio file, this log contained a
number of unusual events and QSOs.
2. Using our globally placed SDR network (which copied MM3AWD
perfectly well) we did not hear
those QSOs take place, so he was asked for a recording.
3. A recording was not provided, so the Contest Committee took the
action of exercising Rule XII (C),
which states: "If no recording is made available, the Committee may
reclassify to an appropriate category,
reclassify to Administrative Check Log, or disqualify the entry."
http://cqww.com/rules.htm
4. Of the three options available, Administrative Check Log was
deemed the most appropriate.
We don't ask everybody in the "top 5" for a recording. We need
something suspicious or curious.
Please see the July 23, 2017 BLOG, item #4:
http://cqww.com/blog/2017-cqww-rules-update-announcement/
Here is an excerpt from the blog:
[Editorial comment: It is important to note a few things about the
“recording” rule. First, 2016 was not the
first year for this rule. Second, the committee does not and will not
request a recording simply because
an entrant is in the top 5. The committee will request a recording
when something suspicious or curious
in the log is identified by the committee. This can be a statistical
flag or something identified after human
review. The committee does not request a recording in an attempt to
“go fishing” for something “out of the blue”
or “without reason.” If you are not breaking the rules or trying to
stretch the rules beyond the letter and/or
spirit of the rules, you are probably not going to be asked for a
recording.]
It would be helpful to any discussion on CQ-Contest if the commenters
would be familiar with the CQWW
Rules before jumping to and posting irrational conclusions.
Doug, KR2Q
on behalf of the CQWW Contest Committee
_______________________________________________
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
|