CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Open logs - one more voice

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Open logs - one more voice
From: kr2q@optonline.net
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:42:38 +0000 (GMT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
CQWW logs: to publish or to not publish...that is the question


Disclaimer:  I am speaking as an individual and not as a member of the CQWW 
Contest Cmte
and not as a member of the ARRL.

QUESTION:  How does a contest sponsor best demonstrate the integrity of their 
contest program?

ANSWER:  By making public all of the entries of those competing.  It's called 
DAYLIGHT.  This
permits scrutiny by the contest community...and the possibility of feedback to 
the contest 
sponsor...AND...to the individual entrant. 

If some of you want to protest this policy by not submitting a log, that's your 
choice and I am 
fine with that!  I am not sure what possible effect you expect that to have, 
but it is your choice.

[I note that Hans has yet to explain his reasoning, except he wants to know why 
we want to look
at his log.]

At CQWWCC, there is no such policy as "one letter off" still gets credit for 
the entrant who submits 
a log with "one letter off."  You can find the details on www.cqww.com

As for the ARRL's apparent policy statement (which also seems subject to 
interpretation by those 
on this reflector - AND - which I have not read), that is their option, not 
mine, not ours, not yours.

The CQWW public logs policy was reached for the sole purpose of demonstrating 
program integrity....
for the both entrants and for the CQWW Contest Committee itself.  It opens up 
BOTH to daylight and 
public scrutiny.  This is a good thing.  Remember..this paragraph (and 
everything else) is MY OPINION.

It would appear (unknown to me factually) that the ARRL policy is an attempt to 
short-circuit those
QSL managers who can't resist sending out a QSL for a "one-off" callsign, in an 
attempt to maintain
their own program integrity.  I am not criticizing the practices of QSL 
mangers.  I take it at face value.

Public contest logs serves the intended purpose of the CQWWCC 100%.

It is my opinion that denying DXCC credit for "published" logs may only "help" 
reduce the apparent 
issue of QSL fraud through the coaxing/begging of QSL managers by hopeful 
submitters.

CU in the next one.

de Doug KR2Q
ARRL member for 40+ continuous years
CQWWCC member for 30+ continuous years
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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