[CQ-Contest] TO7A Comments, Data and Log Checking

[Richard F DiDonna NN3W]

I'm not going to second guess what happened in the email chain in 
question, but having just done three business trips in 2.5 weeks 
including one speaking engagement before a crowd of 1,500 people and 
then chairing a three-day conference in Chicago, I can easily see how 
one could not see a single email in an email in-box.

73 Rich NN3W

On 5/10/2015 4:23 PM, Jeff Stai wrote:
> A five day window that is a random number of weeks or months after a
> contest is not a reasonable window. "Random" as in "sometimes log checking
> takes more or less time."
>
> If we knew these emails were going out March 6 every year, then maybe. As
> it is, if I knew I didn't cheat why would I be looking for this email
> during some vague 4-5 week window?
>
> I'm sure most of us have at one time or another been away from email for
> more than five days. If you haven't you should try it some time. I guess I
> will be adding a couple "in case of emergency" email addresses to my
> soapbox from now on.
>
> 73 jeff wk6i
>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2015, Jeff Clarke <ku8e at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Note Randy's first email to Dim is dated 3 months after the contest. So,
>> not having internet access on the way home to UT from FM isn't an issue. He
>> had 5 days starting March 6th to respond.
>>
>> Did anyone else notice that Randy didn't even mention anything on the
>> reflector about the TO7A DQ until his May 7th post? Dim had replied almost
>> immediately to Randy's earlier post a couple days earlier about the results
>> being available, when he probably realized he had been officially DQed.
>> Plus, Randy sent the email about his possible DQ almost 2 months before to
>> the SAME email address that Dim used to post his responses on this
>> reflector.
>>
>> Dim was given the opportunity to respond to the cheating accusations but
>> chose not to. If the committee had seen the YouTube video a couple months
>> ago maybe they would have taken a different view. Dim appears to be a very
>> accomplished SO2R operator.
>>
>> Could he have made a mistake in his entry and really meant to submit it as
>> assisted? He surely could have discussed this with Randy and could have
>> been reclassified instead of being DQed. He chose not to make contact.
>>
>> The rule says if you don't respond to a cheating accusation that the
>> decision is final. His DQ is almost more due to that fact than if he really
>> cheated.
>>
>> Maybe in the future contact information should be required with an entry
>> in case of discrepancies so contact can be made to discuss them.
>>
>> Jeff
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <javascript:;>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>