[CQ-Contest] CQWW SSB 2017 Effective DQ

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

It is the right tool if you want to continue to alienate participants 
and minimize  their efforts.  Contests are going to get real boring if 
we continue to chase off the casual op even if they happen to make a 
nice score and the only ones left are the super serious.  This is 
supposed to be fun too.

It is a DQ, his score is not listed,  he put in the time and because he 
did well and did not record which can be debated if it was even 
necessary he gets this?

Not friendly, not conducive to bringing new blood in.

If he did something wrong lets hear about it.  To DQ/check log someone 
for no recording is asinine unless there is more to the story.

It is really difficult to proved you didn't do something.

W0MU


On 1/28/2018 7:10 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
> While I think we can all feel MM3AWD's frustration of not thinking he would
> be in the top 5 and be asked for something he didn't have, the fact is the
> "administrative check log" is the right tool for this circumstance.  And
> yes, in the future, more of us should consider that we might do well and
> should add that tool to the portfolio.
>
>   
>
> I think that equating this classification into an "effective DQ" is wrong.
> It isn't.  And shouldn't be thought of that way.  CQ WW has shown no
> hesitation in DQing people they thought should be DQ'd so if they classified
> it as a check log, they are in fact accepting the contesters integrity but
> holding to the rules in my opinion.
>
>   
>
> I, for one, assume Scott did nothing wrong and hope that the rest will as
> well.
>
>   
>
> Sure they don't ask everyone in the top 5 for a recording, but I assume if
> Scott had one, it would have clarified whatever the concern was.
>
>   
>
> 73
>
>   
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest