[CQ-Contest] CX2DK CQWW checklog

[Mats Strandberg]

It seems bad condx in ARRL stirs up emotions more than reasonable
argumentation.

The rules are clear: Top Three aspirants MUST make recordings to qualify.

Everyone knows this... Read the rules please - and follow them - or face
the risk of being reclassified to Checklog.

Nobody gets DQ:d for not submitting the recording.

How difficult can it be?

73 de RM2D, Mats



On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 at 16:12, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>