[CQ-Contest] Fwd: Ethics

Sat Apr 4 17:27:57 PDT 2009

Hi, Rick.  Perhaps I misunderstood your original post.  It says you received
an email from a station which informed you he was taking a QSO out of his
log and you should do the same.  If that is true and if you do remove the
QSO, then it is a rules violation because you are changing your log based on
email, not ham radio on the contest's bands.  The fact that you received the
email during the contest period is irrelevant ... it is a non-ham
communication.  If you had reason to remove the QSO without having received
that email, fine. 

I agree that all the examples you give in this later email appear legitimate
as they are based on your judgment (only) during the contest.  In general,
though, QSOs should not be removed from logs unless you are sure that it is
appropriate for the other station to possibly get a NIL as a result of your
action.  Your three examples seem to be justified.

Ed - W0YK

  _____  

From: rick at nq4i.com [mailto:rick at nq4i.com] On Behalf Of Rick Dougherty NQ4I
Sent: Saturday, 04 April, 2009 07:38
To: w0yk at msn.com
Cc: kd4d at comcast.net; CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: Ethics

Hi Ed...not sure I see what you mean here...the problem has always been post
contest massaging of the log...that is not the case here...I have had to
make decisions on contact validity numerous times in the heat of the
battle...ie during the contest...some examples...exchange not received...the
qso is removed from our log...a slim is worked...qso is removed from the
log..bogus call signs (from a contest hater who made a number of qso's with
different call signs).....qso removed...all during the contest...and all are
for legitimate reasons...de Rick

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Ed Muns <w0yk at msn.com> wrote:

Removing a QSO from the log as a result of receiving an email is a rules
violation.

Ed - W0YK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> kd4d at comcast.net
> Sent: Friday, 03 April, 2009 09:36
> To: CQ-Contest at Contesting.COM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: Ethics
>
> Hi Rick:
>
> Faced with the NIL penalty, I would, in this case, remove the
> QSO from my log before submittal.  I would include a note to
> the contest sponsor, with the log information for the deleted
> QSO, but I don't know if they would read it...
>
> Cabrillo really needs a way to mark a QSO so it is left in
> the log but isn't scored or penalized... :-)
>
> 73,
>
> Mark, KD4D
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "K1TTT" <K1TTT at ARRL.NET>
> To: "reflector cq-contest" <CQ-Contest at Contesting.COM>
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2009 11:41:23 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd:  Ethics
>
> I would say the 'more ethical' approach would have been for
> him to leave the contact in the log.  After all he did make
> it, he can't cause it to go away just by taking it out of the
> log, in fact in the old days that could have been construed
> as falsifying your station log.  Then he should have
> submitted the log to the contest sponsor with a note saying
> that he should not get credit for the specific contact
> because he accidentally violated his license restrictions.
> Unfortunately Cabrillo doesn't let you mark contacts like
> that as zero points and no multiplier credit like you could
> do with paper logs so it would be up to the sponsor to
> un-score the contact.
>
>
>
> David Robbins K1TTT
> e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
> web: http://www.k1ttt.net <http://www.k1ttt.net/> 
> AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
<http://dxc.k1ttt.net/> 
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Dougherty NQ4I [mailto:nq4i at contesting.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 11:47
> > To: CQ Contest
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: Ethics
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Rick Dougherty NQ4I <nq4i at contesting.com>
> > Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics
> > To: sawyered at earthlink.net
> >
> >
> > Hi All...this past weekend in WPX SSB, we worked a KB6 2x3
> call sign
> > on 15m....the qso took place on Friday evening on 15m...on
> Saturday I
> > received an email stating that the KB6 station had realized that he
> > had worked us and he was outside his general class
> privileges and that
> > he was removing the contact from HIS log and suggested that
> WE DO THE
> > SAME!!!!
> > If I did not take his qso out of my log, then he would have
> been a NIL
> > and I would have been penalized even more...anyone ever had this
> > before?
> >
> > de Rick NQ4I
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Edward
> <sawyered at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > You must be assuming that the log shows frequency data.
> In my case,
> > > I am using older software that logs all 20M QSOs as 14000.
> > >
> > > In general, I disagree with the responsibility of the receiving
> > > station "having any responsibility" of knowing the "other
> stations
> > > regs". Why pick on VEs as "they should know US regs".
> Heck, I don't know VE regs.
> > > I have to assume after hearing decades of VEs working staions
> > > simplex on 14150 - 14100 and 7100 - 7000 on SSB that they can
> > > legally do that, but do I KNOW?  Nope.
> > >
> > > And what of the last few years when an I or a G or HB9 or
> whatever
> > > has called me on 7188 or even 7225 simplex?  I have no
> idea whether
> > > they can legally call.  All I know (through the
> grapevine) is that
> > > allocations are changing so they must have that ability now.
> > >
> > > I think it is totally unfair to ask the CQing station
> doing 100+ an
> > > hour to be "hanging out an ethical filter" in the heat of
> the battle
> > > as they log Qs.
> > >
> > > And contrary to the statement made earlier by someone
> that this is a
> > > 0.1% problem.  It absolutely is not.  I hear dozens of
> out of band
> > > Qs every contest on 40M as stations call simplex on EU stations
> > > running split.  I am assuming most are using the cluster to point
> > > and shout and not watching what they are doing.but that
> is just an
> > > assumption on my part.
> > >
> > > Ed  N1UR
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest