[CQ-Contest] Request to publish all calls of stations found to be breaking any rule in all contests
Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr at comcast.net
Sat Apr 15 17:17:17 EDT 2017
I'm with Mike. Warnings shouldn't be publicized, but if someone is
listed as DQ, then any "shaming" has already been done, so putting the
specific violation alongside the call would be a pretty cost-free
contribution to confidence in the CQWWCC's processes, particularly if
taken along with a public table of "what gets you what."
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.
On 4/14/2017 6:29 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> Printing a call and violation does not equal excessive public
> humiliation to me. YMMV.
>
> I think we need to draw a hard line with serious competitors vs
> participants. There is a huge difference. To the participants my
> comments about enforcement and rules violations are made to serious
> competitors that should know better. I believe we take the
> participants for granted and do not appreciate their contributions as
> much as we should.
>
> Does a list of public offenders keep people in line? I thnk so. I do
> believe that we owe it to the community to reach out to those that
> broke a rule and let them know what they did, why it is frowned upon
> and making it a learning opportunity.
>
> There is a long list of Big big big callsigns including MM's that were
> heard happily working stations out of band in the CQ WW. I am pretty
> sure and agree with N2IC that pushing it under the rug with a wink
> wink is sending the wrong message.
>
> So what should be done differently, if anything?
>
> Should we begin to look at having different classes of competition?
> Is it as simple as do you wish your log to be considered for
> competition or as a participant?
>
> Lets take Drag racing. There are a lot of competitors but they do not
> compete against the other classes as the cars are considerably
> different. Why do we do this in contesting? The Tribander/wires
> overlay is an attempt at this but nobody has really tried to sell
> this. How about a few classes that encompass the majority of the
> competition. One Tower under 100 feet. One tower under 50 ft. Less
> than 3 towers. Limit it to maybe 5 classes. The super competitive
> probably need to be in a class all their own and as stated scrutinized
> much more heavily. Find some common ground, get people competing that
> are similar and I think we might see better competition where many
> more people have the chance to win. What would be great is if we could
> get these classes adopted across the board with many contests.
>
> Golf has a handicapping system that allows duffers a way to compete
> against better players. Admittedly I have no idea on how to pull this
> off in contesting but maybe there is a way?
>
> We also must get away from National scoring in countries like the US
> and Canada, Russia and other places where it is obvious that certain
> regions have huge geographic advantages over the rest of the field.
> We all can't and don't want to move to Maine or the NE in the USA and
> I am sure those already there would prefer we stay away! HI! Maybe
> in ARRL contests more emphasis should be placed on division winners
> and the competition within. Not all contests lend themselves easily
> to this.
>
> When people know they have no shot to win, are they giving it their
> all? Probably not. Will that change if we give more recognition to
> the guy that wins single tower SW USA?
>
> Will any change make a difference or will contesting always be about
> the top? I don't think that resonates well with everyone, though.
>
> W0MU
>
>
> On 4/14/2017 2:57 PM, Ria Jairam wrote:
>> If someone does it repeatedly, they are very likely doing it
>> deliberately, for example. A one-off is probably an accident. Twice
>> and more, not so much.
>> Also, a low scorer with low hours, deliberate or not is harming no
>> one. They probably just submitted a log to help the contest
>> organizers with scoring and didn't even bother to properly check the
>> category (I've done that).
>>
>> I just don't see the need for zero tolerance and excessive public
>> humiliation, where the contest isn't fun anymore and where we end up
>> driving away casual ops who just want to make a few QSOs and feel
>> good about that.
>>
>> I do think high scrutiny should be placed on competitive stations, to
>> the point where we should have cloud based (or cloud connected)
>> loggers and electronic surveillance for serious (top 10 world and US)
>> competitors.
>>
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:41 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com
>> <mailto:w0mu at w0mu.com>> wrote:
>>
>> How can you tell which violations are deliberate vs accidental?
>> Rules are written so that intent is not considered. Either you
>> did it or you did not.
>>
>> Why publish the calls of DQ stations did they self spot on purpose
>> without knowing the rules etc.
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>> On 4/14/2017 8:43 AM, Ria Jairam wrote:
>>> I"m not sure what a hall of shame online would accomplish, but I
>>> guess if you want to go zero tolerance with rules violations this
>>> would be the way to go.
>>>
>>> My only stipulation is that the rules violation has to be
>>> deliberate, and not accidental.
>>>
>>> 73, Ria, N2RJ
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Pete Smith N4ZR
>>> <n4zr at comcast.net <mailto:n4zr at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bravo, Mike. Let me extend the thought a bit further. The
>>> CQWW Committee needs to be transparent and specific about its
>>> criteria for various actions. What warrants a warning, versus
>>> what warrants a DQ? What repeated infractions from one year
>>> to the next warrant a DQ?
>>>
>>> The old yellow card/red card system was an attempt at this.
>>> Nobody is asking *how* they caught the cheaters, just what
>>> the penalties are for various offenses, either current or
>>> repeated. That's the only way they will get pastthe
>>> perception that they are being arbitrary, favoring a
>>> particular nationality and so on.
>>>
>>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>>> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
>>> at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
>>> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
>>> For spots, please use your favorite
>>> "retail" DX cluster.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/13/2017 7:25 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>>
>>> CQ chose only to publish stations that were Disqualified.
>>>
>>> How about a list of all stations that were found to have
>>> broken a rule(s) and the penalty for doing so.
>>>
>>> How about a lot more transparency.
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>>
>>> W0MU
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> <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
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list