[CQ-Contest] Five DQ's Mark 2008 CQ WW SSB

[Zack Widup]

I don't know how they determine this. Do they look at the times in other
peoples' logs? What if you work several people in a row whose clocks are all
off by a few minutes? It could happen, no matter how unlikely. That may make
it appear you were violating the 10-minute rule.

Why does that rule exist, anyway?

73, Zack W9SZ

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Dave - AB7E <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>wrote:

>
>
> Agreed.  A friend of mine joined me for a M/S effort in the 2008 CQ WW CW
> contest, and our UBN report shows we were dinged for ten violations of the
> ten minute rule.  I checked our log carefully (which had NOT been altered)
> and found that only two of them were valid ... the rest clearly had ten
> minutes or more spacing.  That seems to be an ongoing unresolved problem
> with the scoring process that has been discussed here before, but the point
> is that we simply were penalized for the "violations" and our entry
> classification remained M/S.
>
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
>
> ------Original Mail------
> From: "Stan Stockton" <k5go at cox.net>
> To: "Davor Kucelin" <davor.kucelin at plavalaguna.hr>,
>    <cq-contest at contesting.com>,
>    <xdavid at 40cis-broadband.com>
> Sent: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:05:52 -0500
>  Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Five DQ's Mark 2008 CQ WW SSB
>
> I am not a log checker but am interested in how this works.  I can only
> assume that if someone made 6400 contacts and by mistake had twelve 10
> minute rule violations the thing to do would be to submit the log as
> planned in the M/S category, appropriate deductions would be made
> (minor) and there would be no DQ.
>
> If it were realized during the contest that these twelve violations
> occurred and those stations were then duped during legal times on the
> particular bands perhaps there would not even be a penalty.  I assume
> the problem is in changing the times to make it look like the contacts
> were legal which could cause someone to wonder whether there were
> hundreds of contacts that were altered by a minute or two.
>
> If the log had not been altered, I would be amazed if there would have
> been anything other than a small, insignificant reduction in score.
>
> Just an uneducated opinion on my part.
>
> Stan, K5GO
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Davor Kucelin" <davor.kucelin at plavalaguna.hr>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Cc: <xdavid at 40cis-broadband.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Five DQ's Mark 2008 CQ WW SSB
>
>
> > Dear Dave and others,
> >
> > There is probably some misunderstanding. One part is missing on
> > radiospot.net.
> > On 6400 qsos we had 12qsos under violation of max 2-3min. I checked
> > log my
> > self and found those violations. Nobody of you tought that 12 qsos on
> > 6400
> > can be human mistakes caused by many factors
> > (sleepnes,hurry,software.)
> > Those 12 qsos are not rare mults but also some big M/M stns that can
> > be work
> > over the whole contest. If I deleted those qsos it would cause NIL to
> > others.
> > The right way was claiming Multi-Multi but I assumed those qsos would
> > just
> > be flaged and not counted for the score. There are still some logs
> > with this
> > errors that passed trough ubn procedure, some even dont have 0/1 for
> > which
> > stn did the qso. I agree something has to be done, expecaly in the
> > SOABHP
> > cat, lets wait for wwcw results.
> >
> > What procedure should we do if during a 48h contest we make some
> > mistakes
> > In waiting 10min? Do we really have to be M/M or can we just somehow
> > remove
> > qsos without hitting others???
> >
> > 73 Dave 9A1UN
> >
> > P.S Still love this game
> >
> >
> >
> > AB7E wrote:
> >
> > The responses from those who were DQ'd offer interesting insight into
> > their
> > attitudes toward cheating.  These folks admit intentionally and
> > blatantly
> > violating an important contest rule, thereby attempting to gain an
> > unfair
> > advantage over more honest competitors, and yet they feel
> > disqualification
> > was
> > an "over-reaction".  That would be like me robbing a bank and
> > expecting my
> > penalty if I got caught to be merely having to return the money.  And
> > these
> > are
> > people from the upper echelon of the sport!
> >
> > For what it may be worth, one of those same stations clearly and
> > explicitly
> > asked me to spot them on the cluster when I worked them in the 2009 CQ
> > WPX
> > CW
> > contest (yes, I reported it), so I'm not inclined to put much credence
> > into
> > sympathetic excuses about isolated errors in judgment.
> >
> > Dave   AB7E
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>