[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Committee comments on audio recordings (wa

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Committee comments on audio recordings (was MM3AWD)
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 08:15:14 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

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.


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