[CQ-Contest] CX2DK CQWW checklog

[DXer]

Group,

After a long thread, it may be a good idea to go back the CX2DK very 
first message about this.

Quote:
"After several years, I began with contests. Over time I have personally and
economically sacrificed so that my station every day is in better 
condition."

I admire CX2DK commitment to the hobby. If the intent was not to be 
recognized at the top of the rankings by his peers, why bother with the 
reclassification to checklog? It must have been his personal best 
regardless.

On the other hand, if it was his intent to be recognized by his peers, 
he missed some important station upgrades, and there was no lack of 
advance 'warning'.

Quote:
"How could it be that for not having audio, send me to checklog being the
first in my category with a big difference (double of points) with the
second???"

Most people will agree that doubling the points of the second place 
finisher would be an acceptable reason for the CC to want to check 
things out, informally or otherwise.

Quote:
"If there are doubts of some multipliers, please delete them, remove qsos or
whatever, but do not send me to checklog without asking."

This is a tough one, not as clear cut as it sounds. A multiplier or two, 
yes, simply delete them. Was a multiplier or two responsible for 
doubling the score of the nearest competitor?

Quote:
"But can not you listen to audio with the SDR?"

They could, I guess, but why would the CC committee have to dig for this 
info inside a huge file (all bands/all participants), when they can ask 
for the participant's specific recording.

Towards the end of the message, there is a list of real and/or perceived 
violations that could have happened during the contest. What are we to 
think of it? If you can not stop every possible violation, there should 
be no enforcement?

Quote:
"Today there are many people in the world who are angry and think if they
are going to do the CQWW 2017."

If you are referring to the number of submitted logs, any reduction is 
more likely to be related to bad propagation than perceived unfairness 
in the enforcement of the contest rules.

73 de Vince, VA3VF



On 2017-03-06 8:55 AM, DXer wrote:
> And this alone - not providing a recording for the second consecutive
> year - settles the issue.
>
> Once again, it was not/not a DQ. We don't know, and will likely never
> know, if there was a violation.
>
> It was a case of non-compliance with post-contest rules. The log was
> reclassified as a checklog for this reason, and this reason only.
>
> We can argue whether the CC was too lenient the first year, but as Peter
> said, if the rules are not enforced, why bother having rules.
>
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>
> On 2017-03-06 1:31 AM, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>> And that was likely the reason no action was taken the first year this
>> station failed to produce a recording.
>>
>> The second year running, though, he had a year to plan how to comply with
>> the rule and failed to do so, it was time to act.
>>
>> If you have a rule that's there to provide a way for a top station to
>> demonstrate they are in compliance, and 2 years running the same top
>> station breaks that rule, you have to start enforcement otherwise you may
>> as well not bother.
>>
>> Peter G4MJS
>>
>> On 6 Mar 2017 12:10 a.m., "VE3FH via CQ-Contest"
>> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Give me a break!!
>>>
>>> There's tons of reasons why anyone could do much better than expected
>>> and
>>> end up placing much higher in the results, if by chance someone ends up
>>> within the top three and made no recording thinking there was no
>>> chance for
>>> that to happen then that competitor is rewarded with being tossed in the
>>> checklog pot and accused of wrongdoing... What a joke!!
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Julio VE3FH