I think the rule is fine as-is.
Unless you have a time machine there is no way you can go back and make a
recording which you didn’t make during the contest.
So requiring it for competitive top 5 is OK.
What Doug was saying is that you will likely only need to produce it if you
are suspected of cheating. If one wants to roll the dice and not record
then one should expect the consequences if they don’t.
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 5:19 PM Doug Renwick <email@example.com> wrote:
> The rules give a false impression. They say 'MUST record' ... Which you
> say will only be required when something suspicious or curious in the log
> identified by the committee.
> You have now clarified the recording rule. An operator DOES NOT have to
> record the contest to win or place in the top five. The wording of the rule
> needs to be changed to reflect the current practice.
> The committee is to blame for the jumping to and posting irrational
> conclusions because how the recording rule works was withheld.
> The recording rule should be changed to ... SHOULD record the ... A
> non-cheating (with regard to QSOs) operator would have a slim chance of
> being DQd because of no record.
> C. Audio Recordings: Any single operator entrant (see V.A.1) competing for
> top five finish at the (a) World, (b) Continent, or (c) USA levels,
> including Classic Overlay, must record the transmitted and received audio
> heard by the operator for the duration of the contest operation. The
> recording must be in a common format (e.g., mp3) and should include the
> audio to each ear as a separate channel. The recording must be a continuous
> recording (not a recording of individual QSOs). Time "off the air" (when
> transmitting or receiving) does not have to recorded. The recording may be
> requested by the Committee within 120 days after the log deadline to help
> adjudicate the log. The recording files must be provided by the entrant
> within 5 days of the request. If no recording is made available, the
> Committee may reclassify to an appropriate category, reclassify to
> Administrative Check Log, or disqualify the entry.
> "Political correctness is a weapon used to silence people who tell the
> truth" - Ayaan Hirsi Ali
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL
> Sent: February-04-18 5:28 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Committee comments on audio recordings
> (was MM3AWD)
> 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
> 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."
> 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:
> 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
> 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
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list