[CQ-Contest] CX2DK CQWW checklog

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Gotta love our moderators letting this through.


On 3/4/2017 4:02 PM, Ria Jairam wrote:
> People are reading too much into this.
>
> It was the same effect (in this contest) as a DQ, just without the harsher
> penalties. It's similar to the red/yellow card system that was implemented.
>
> In a wider context it was more lenient and I believe this was on purpose.
> Give him a slap on the wrist rather than throwing the book at him. It has
> been done before.
>
> BTW for the snarky responses from Steve N2IC, W0MU and others, yes I can
> and do read the rules, as well as answer the surveys when rule changes are
> proposed. I've been licensed for almost 20 years now and I have scored in
> most contests higher than W0MU actually, with plaques on my wall to prove
> it. So I know a thing or two. :)
>
> Anyway, don't read too much into what I'm saying. The basic premise is
> there - it could have been a "full" DQ but they chose not to because
> apparently they wanted to be lenient. C
>
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:48 PM, DXer <hfdxmonitor at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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