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

[Richard F DiDonna NN3W]

Hi Randy, thanks for the info on the timelines.  I know that they have 
become compressed over time - owing to demands of customers (i.e., us)!  
I am not privy to the process that you undertook.  Have you considered 
using the closest possible committee member if there is not an initial 
response to the director's request?  Perhaps you do that already.  But, 
if not, doing so might help resolve the issue of email from one address 
getting caught in a spam folder no man's land.

Again, I am not privy to what happened in this instance other than it 
being stated that an attempt was made to reach out and no response was 
provided.

As to breaking the rules, things can happen inadvertently.  Band change 
violations; errors with station numbering; etc.

73 Rich NN3W

On 5/10/2015 9:40 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
> It takes 90 days from the end of the contest until the CQWW results are due
> at CQ Magazine.  Given that we need almost 60 days to process the logs and
> investigate the suspect logs, how much time should be allocated to waiting
> for someone to respond to an email about their entry?
>
> If you don't break the rules, you shouldn't have to look for an email.  But,
> it is good to have a valid one in your log in case we need to ask a question
> about your address or entry category.
>
> There was never a formal appeals process before the rules update last year.
> Maybe we still need to do some tuning, but not sure the number of days to
> reply to an email is really the issue.
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Richard F DiDonna NN3W
>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 9:39 PM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A Comments, Data and Log Checking
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>