[CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog

Wed Apr 19 11:02:51 EDT 2017

T48K

How do you know what evidence CQ has?  Bob has mentioned a couple of 
items.  You are debating the case based on the limited information 
presented here.

I love a great conspiracy but I would really like to understand why 
people believe the these 3 people have grudges or an agenda against 
certain people.  What exactly have I missed?  Please educate us so we 
are all on the same page.

Out of band

I do not agree with the lenient penalty applied to this conduct.  I have 
been pretty vocal about it.  How many people changed their logs to 
indicate that they were actually operating on a different frequency?  
Would that be cheating?  Covering up a violation with falsified log 
info?    I wonder if the DX ham lost any qso's due to NILs from people 
fixing their log after the contest?

W0MU

On 4/19/2017 8:53 AM, ve4xt at mymts.net wrote:
> If there is, as apparently there is, evidence of multiple incursions by US stations into forbidden band segments, in violation of US law, why zero DQs?
>
> Why isn't the law-and-order contingent clamouring for justice? If the message is "break the rules and you'll be DQd," isn't US federal law a significant rule Americans should be expected to obey?
>
> Especially since many, it seems, persisted in completing the Q after having been warned they were out of band. I can see if a station does it once, and isn't warned. Hard to claim brain cramp if it's repeated, or is done after a warning.
>
> Is it not possible foreign hams who were DQd for less would see that as bias?
>
> Ed does point out significant inconsistency in the DQ of T48K. I am curious, in light of Ed's claim that cellphone bills were provided as evidence to the contrary, which off-air method of communication the team is suspected of using.
>
> If the committee is going to observe a lower standard of proof, shouldn't that also apply to exculpatory evidence?
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 19:25, Ed K1EP <k1ep.list at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:36 PM, <w5ov at w5ov.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK.  That's enough.
>>>
>>> There was apparent evidence of off-air communication with VE3XIN and T48K
>>> in approximately 60 suspicious spots of T48K.
>> Off air?  ESP?  Just how did this happen?  We were on an island in a
>> somewhat remote area with NO phone, NO internet, NO WiFi.  If you had a
>> satellite phone, you would be put in prison.  We submitted our cell phone
>> bills with detail billing information for the weekend with no evidence of
>> this.  But Bob claims apparent evidence.  Show us the evidence Bob. Bob
>> wants us to prove the negative.
>>
>>
>>> To confirm this and other claims of innocence, SDR recordings of T48K were
>>> evaluated.
>> So off the air is now on the air.
>> 
>>
>>
>>> During this review, several instances of T48K requesting to be spotted
>>> over the air, directly in violation of the rules were noted.
>> There were three instances of a new contester asking for spots on his
>> first shift in the contest.  We told him to not do it, he stopped, that was
>> it.  So if you break your rule, intentional or not, you are DQ?  How about
>> all the US stations we worked out of the US band?  Clear evidence in our
>> log of the frequency.  Not one US station was DQd.  
>>
>>
>>> At that point, no further investigation was necessary and the
>>> Disqualification confirmed.
>>>
>>> Those are the key facts of the T48K DQ.
>> Those are not all the facts and you know it.  You are trying to justify a
>> bad judgment call.
>> 
>>
>>
>>> There were no hunches, feelings or other unsubstantiated reasons for the
>>> T48K DQ.
>> You clearly state "apparent".  That is a hunch.
>>
>>
>>> No "friends" spotted anyone a few times leading to a DQ.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Bob W5OV
>>> CQWW Contest Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, April 17, 2017 1:34 pm, Ed K1EP wrote:
>>>> On Apr 17, 2017 2:11 PM, "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is indeed time for some rules changes.  You cannot be DQing people for
>>>> the actions of others that we have no control over.  If you have proof
>>>> of collusion or cooperation great.  To tell me you can DQ me because my
>>>> neighbor thought he was doing something nice and spotted me a few times
>>>> is over the top.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well that is exactly what KR2Q is telling you and what he has done. He
>>>> will DQ a station because others have spotted him without that station's
>>>> knowledge or consent and the station has no control over or communication
>>>> with the spotter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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