[CQ-Contest] CX2DK CQWW checklog

[DXer]

Hi Ria,

I hear you...but based on what we know, I think there are differences 
between this case, and the others discussed on the list recently.

In other cases, the info that reached the list did mention the suspected 
violation/s. We don't know about a violation in this case, up to now.

 >>The only difference is one looks better on paper for future endeavors.

And this is the point, by calling it a DQ the OM is being put in the 
same basket as the other more serious violators. It may be deserved, may 
be not, we simply don't know.

For reasons that only the OM and the CC know, a recording was not 
presented when requested, a case o non-compliance with post-contest rules.

 >> I'm sure they could DQ if they really wanted to.

Nothing wrong with that, but it was not the case, it was a reclassification.

73 de Vince, VA3VF



On 2017-03-04 10:11 AM, Ria Jairam wrote:
> Oh it's not really a difference.
>
> It's like asking someone for their resignation versus firing them. Same
> thing happens - the person is gone. The only difference is one looks
> better on paper for future endeavors.
>
> So for all intents and purposes it's a DQ, just not in name. The CC is
> being lenient. I'm sure they could DQ if they really wanted to. They've
> done this for others.
>
>
>
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:01 AM DXer <hfdxmonitor at gmail.com
> <mailto:hfdxmonitor at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Rudy and group,
>
>     Serious question...it has to do with terminolgy. Is this really a DQ?
>     W4PA's message to CX2DK does not use the term DQ, but reclassification.
>
>     As you wrote below, there was no violation, but a non-compliance
>     situation.
>
>     Not taking sides, but DQ seems to strong for what happened.
>
>     73 de Vince, VA3VF