[CQ-Contest] CQWW SSB 2017 Effective DQ
giwagner at k5kg.com
Thu Feb 1 11:31:37 EST 2018
An 18 minute gap? The will be burned at the stake!
George WagnerSarasota, FL
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:23 AM -0500, "Jim Stahl via CQ-Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:
Am I correct to assume that the CQWW Committee will not be listening to every moment of every recording made by every top five entrant? But rather they will focus on ones where there is already some reason to suspect some significant rules violation?
So why is it necessary for each top entrant to be able to prove they are innocent, rather than allowing, but not requiring, anybody to submit a recording in their defense as proof that any suspicions were unfounded? Is the Committee planning to make these recordings public, just as logs are now made public?
And what will happen if an eighteen minute gap is discovered, when at a critical time the operator leaned over to adjust the amplifier and just happened to hit the wrong key on the recorder?
73 - Jim K8MR
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Michael Adams wrote:
> I think the point a few folks are making is that there are some casual participants who are simply in it to have fun. They may be interested in their score, but they aren't necessarily striving to be better and better contesters.
> For that crowd, the folks who fill the logs of the folks getting Top 5 finishes, you want as few impediments as possible to avoid discouraging them from participating and sending in their logs.
> That's why limiting the requirement of a recording to those entrants who can reasonably expect to be in the running for a top 5 finish makes a certain amount of sense, assuming of course that there is some allowance for folks who unexpectedly do well.
> I have no strong opinion on the merits of requiring a recording in the first place, aside from noting that it's surprisingly easy to comply with.
> Michael Adams | mda at n1en.org
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest