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

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Since Scott brought this on himself, it was pointed out to me that he 
also made 3 contacts with MM3AWD and that call has the last name of 
Mcleman all with no radio data happpening on 10, 80 and 160m.  I have 
zero proof if those are some of the specific issues with this particular 
log or not but is does make one wonder.    Maybe he did work this 
station legally or maybe the contact just magically appeared in the log.

I have no issue with CQ asking for the recording and they were probably 
being nice making it a check log and not a DQ as long as there is enough 
of an explanation given after the official results are final so that the 
public and the participant understand what happened.  What they choose 
to tell us vs the participant is up to CQ.

W0MU

On 2/6/2018 1:30 PM, Ria Jairam wrote:
> I think we agree on that but we can’t simply apply the rules unevenly
> because of what someone has done in the past.
>
> However the explanation given by Doug has pointed to either log padding or
> contacts made outside of amateur means.
>
> So I guess even given a clean slate, he would have been DQ anyway.
>
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:33 PM Peter Bowyer <peter at salmark.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Can I just point out that it would be unwise to believe unquestioningly the
>> version of events provided by the original poster here.
>>
>> Peter G4MJS
>>
>> On 6 Feb 2018 14:04, "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree Ron.  What other sport/activity just DQ's you or changes your class
>> and tells you nothing?
>>
>> How is one to learn or understand their mistakes if one is not told what
>> the issue was?
>>
>> This can be done without revealing all the methodology of how the decision
>> was made.
>>
>> If we have someone that is a constant cheater they can just be banned and
>> you move on.
>>
>> Life is too short, people cheat and will cheat and will continue to do so
>> regardless of the rules.
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/5/2018 5:14 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>>
>>> I respectfully disagree Jim.
>>>
>>> Of course, it depends on how the announcement is made.
>>>
>>> If I were asked, which I have not been, an announcement could have been
>>> posted on the contest blog or webpage, something to this effect:
>>>
>>> "The following stations were reclassified as per (pertinent rules) for
>> the
>>> following reason:  The requested recording was not made available in
>>> accordance with the rules.  The recording was requested to verify certain
>>> specific log information"  followed by the list of stations.
>>>
>>> An announcement like that serves the purpose of transparency by saying
>> why
>>> the reclassification (or, in some other cases, DQ) took place, without
>>> getting into the specific nutz & boltz details.
>>>
>>> And a disclaimer to that effect... for example, "due to privacy concerns,
>>> and to protect the integrity of the log checking process, the specific
>>> contacts in question will not be publicly revealed" or similar
>> verbiage...
>>> would make it clear, at least to most readers (conspiracy nutz not
>>> withstanding) that something amiss was suspected of taking place.
>>>
>>> I think it also would be appropriate to show somewhere (if not in the
>>> wording of the rules, in a FAQ type of addendum) that while the rules
>> give
>>> the Committee the right under certain circumstances to request a
>> recording,
>>> standing policy is that it will only do so when something unusual
>> requires
>>> it.  Which gets back to the point in Doug's email -- it isn't a secret,
>> or
>>> if it was he kinda let the camel poke his nose in the tent.
>>>
>>> So why not make it clear, in a straight forward but non-threatening way,
>>> why
>>> the rules in question exist, and why they are most likely (but not
>> always)
>>> to be invoked?
>>>
>>> That's what I would tell the Committee if I was asked.  But they haven't
>>> asked me, so I don't expect anything from my suggestions.
>>>
>>> 73, ron w3wn
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Jim
>>> Brown
>>> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 11:50 AM
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Committee comments on audio
>>> recordings (was MM3AWD)
>>>
>>> On 2/4/2018 8:42 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> WRONG -- it also gives cheaters clues about what things they do can be
>>> detected, and, what cannot.
>>>
>>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest