[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Committee blog post - audio recording

[w5ov at w5ov.com]

Congratulations are in order for KK9A!

This is the correct perspective to have.

If you do not cheat, it does not matter what your score is, you will not
be asked for anything.  Not for an explanation, not for a recording, not
for anything.

73,

Bob W5OV

On Tue, April 18, 2017 3:44 pm, john at kk9a.com wrote:
> Sometimes a casual effort is all that is needed for a winning score do to
>  lack of competition in a particular category. It is probably a good idea
>  to always record however I doubt that the WW committee would even ask
> for the recording unless there was something suspicious about your
> operation. I am sure that the committee is not looking to disqualify
> honest casual efforts.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
>
> To:	"CQ-Contest at contesting.com" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject:	[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Committee blog post - audio recording
> From:	Mark <markzl3ab at gmail.com>
> Date:	Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:10:04 +1200
>
>
> The CQ WW Committee blog post about audio recording is a bit of surprise
> to me.  Up until now I had figured audio recording would only be an issue
> in Oceania for the serious entrants (i.e. entries with lots of QSOs and/or
>  hours on the air).  In Oceania a casual entry of 1-200 Qs could easily
> put you in the top three of just about any single op single band category,
>  assuming the category even had three entrants (I won the Oceania CW 40m
> QRP
> assisted category and set a new record with one QSO and two points a few
> years back).  In its post the committee quotes the Asian 160m low power
> category.  Looking at the 2016 SSB results there were no entrants in that
>  category (assuming there wasn't an entrant(s) who was moved to a
> checklog for not audio recording) so any entry at all would have won it.
> In Oceania
> there was one entrant who made four QSOs.
>
> I would pick most if not all ops who perceive themselves as casual would
> not audio record their entry (or even know they had to).  Is it really the
>  Committee's intention to DQ casual entrants who end up in the top three
> due to a lack of other entrants, if they do not provide an audio record?
> If so
> then I'd suggest the rules should be amended to make it clear that any
> entry competitive or not which ends up in the top three is subject to the
>  audio recording requirement because casual ops will not consider
> themselves competitive.  It will of course have the effect of decimating
> casual single category entries in this part of world (such as it is) by
> ops who just enter for fun but who do not want to run the risk of being
> besmirched by a DQ.
> A better way (and it seems to me contesting is heading this way in
> general) would be for entrants to be able to enter any category they like
> but designate themselves as casual or competitive.  If casual then they
> would not need to provide an audio record but could still be listed in the
>  results database for their category (assuming they comply with the other
>  rules).  However they would not eligible for a certificate which would
> go to the highest competitive entries and who of course would need to
> provide an audio record on request.  Also only competitive entries would
> be eligible to set records and to be listed in the top entrant lists in
> the results write up.  At least this way an entrant can make a conscious
> decision as to how they want their entry to be treated rather than run
> the risk of a DQ if they are unlucky enough to enter a category with less
> than three other entrants.
>
> 73
> Mark ZL3AB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>