[CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Committee comments on audio recordings (was MM3AWD)

Joe nss at mwt.net
Mon Feb 5 08:43:32 EST 2018


This all would have been a no issue at all if we all were just given 
"Just the facts mam" from the beginning.

It should be just like a court of Law. If you are found guilty of a 
crime, they read out loud in the court room, what you have been found 
guilty of, and then the sentence, or penalty, for being found guilty.

No one has a trial, and then are told you are going to jail for a year, 
but no evidence is ever shown.

The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
On 2/4/2018 10:42 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> Doug’s message is great.
> I think if anything, the lesson here is the value of transparency. Announcing DQs (or administrative check logs) but trying to keep the reasons private just raises suspicion.
> Suggesting, as CQ did, the only reason for the reclassification was the failure to provide a recording — and not how suspicious log entries could not be corroborated with SDR evidence — means the scolding at the end of Doug’s message is a bit misplaced. Surely we all have enough life experience our BS detectors go off full steam ahead when someone, anyone, suggests “just trust us…” The fact other committee members have, at times, been a bit condescending when similar issues were raised certainly didn’t help.
> But I give Doug credit for a good explanation all the same. This wouldn’t have blown up like this had the committee got out in front of it instead.
> 73, kelly, ve4xt,

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list