[CQ-Contest] Bravo - CQ

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

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
too much.  

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
evidence, merited.  

Let him serve his time, so to speak.  

What then?

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
himself.

But only one.

73, ron w3wn

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
W0MU
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 4:34 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Bravo - CQ

Agreed.

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.

W0MU

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
TO7A
> suspicion will continue if any other logs appear that need to be
sanitized.
> 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
Audacity.
> In my case - I found that separate isolation transformers were need on
each
> 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
rules
> of recording and frequency logging: what is the frequency of split
operation
> 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,
in
> looking at my logs and others, it looks pretty random whether the receive
or
> the transmit frequency ends up in the log when using single radio split.
It
> 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.
>
>   
>
> 73
>
>   
>
> 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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus