[CQ-Contest] Bravo - CQ
Ron Notarius W3WN
wn3vaw at verizon.net
Thu Jun 25 21:10:18 EDT 2015
With the caveat that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what was done or
cheating of any sort...
I don't agree in principle with a lifetime ban for a... well, clearly not a
first offense in retrospect, but saying a "first conviction" would be a bit
A 5 year ban (which is what this effectively is) from competitively
participating in any CQ contest is a harsh punishment... and based on the
Let him serve his time, so to speak.
I think it should go without saying that he'll effectively be on "probation"
(ie extra-ordinary levels of scrutiny) for years after that, assuming that
he does ever return to competitive operating in the CQ contests. And
obviously, there is a high probability that other contest sponsors will do
the same during the 5 years, and after, as well.
With that in mind, if he shows that he hasn't learned his lesson... then
(IMHO) we should start discussing harsher sanctions, up to and including a
ban for life.
I'm not opposed to it. I just am enough of an optimist (despite my years on
many email reflectors) that I'm willing to give him one chance to redeem
But only one.
73, ron w3wn
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 4:34 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Bravo - CQ
I am concerned with exactly what would be necessary to gain a lifetime
ban. What he did was so far over the line.
Too bad too as he seemed like a very decent op.
Shame on you sir and all the others that have yet to be caught. You
days in the spotlight will also be limited and this cheating hurts us all.
On 6/25/2015 8:20 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
> Bravo to the CQ Contest Committee and the Directors of the CQ WW, CQ WPX,
> and CQ 160 contests. I hope the crowd sharing method that invoked the
> suspicion will continue if any other logs appear that need to be
> It didn't take long for the contest community to confirm what smelled was
> indeed bad fish.
> Just as an FYI, I have already set up my recording software using
> In my case - I found that separate isolation transformers were need on
> channel L/R to make it noise and "click free" as I changed radios. I will
> be recording the IARU contest as a "trial run". It would look to be "no
> burden at all" to do so.
> One thing that needs still to be clarified in the changing monitoring
> of recording and frequency logging: what is the frequency of split
> on 40 and 80. In my case, I often transmit on one radio and listen on the
> other. My receive frequency would never be recorded in such case. Also,
> looking at my logs and others, it looks pretty random whether the receive
> the transmit frequency ends up in the log when using single radio split.
> probably depends on the software and which VFO is the transmit vs the
> receive. The intent needs to be clarified here and the less intrusive the
> better to allow for software, radio, and technique flexibility.
> Ed N1UR
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the CQ-Contest