[CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog
Roberto Rey
cwdude at gmail.com
Wed Apr 19 11:44:59 EDT 2017
Alex, That is so far fetched..its hilarious! Who would monitor a frqcy 24/7
hearing nothing for hours?
You are watching too much TV!
73 de Rob HK3CW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Malyava" <alex.k2bb at gmail.com>
To: <ve4xt at mymts.net>
Cc: "Bob Naumann" <w5ov at w5ov.com>; "Ed K1EP" <k1ep.list at gmail.com>; "cq
Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>; "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu at w0mu.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog
> "which off-air method of communication the team is suspected of using"
>
> hmmm...
>
> I would arrange a few CW frequencies and ask my friend back in the states
> or Canada to monitor them 24x7.
> Once in a while I will transmit a request for "spot me, the rate is slow"
> and will notify him about upcoming band change.
> All of this can be done in a form of innocent cq or fake qso with bogus
> call sign...
>
> N0ONE de CO0LID... my radio is 14 years old, my power is 220 W
>
> that's it - you just told you friend to spot you at 14.220 :)
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:53 AM, ve4xt at mymts.net <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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list