Hi Igor,
we accept XQSO - even if they are not the preferred method here by tech
reasons and we don´t advertise them to teams. But any team marking a qso as
XQSO can prove that they did mark the qso in this way and is of course
"legally" safe against deductions (or can challenge deductions which were
then our fault if we did not recognize the XQSOs). We also accept marker "C"
in stf-format and as preferred method we accept mails by teams with the qsos
made unintentionally in error of being a multiplier and then turning out to
be not. All those three methods are used by other teams for years.
But in this case the team in question used neither method but decided for
itself to not use any marker and to delete the qsos - without contacting us
in advance how to do it better instead. We detected this by SDR-recordings.
The team initially accused us of using a defunct software which is not the
case as the software is used unchanged and unchallenged for years. They
defended their action straightforward with "being forced to delete" the qsos
to escape deductions for breaking the 10-minute-rule. They admitted to have
done so intentionally and systematically. This was regarded as
unsportsmanlike behaviour and therefore the story unfolded as described.
We are unhappy about the controversy as it is a known, respected and
successful team and we hope that this will remain an incident like a yellow
card for an outstanding football player who can show his reaction by scoring
some more goals (for what do we know Zinedine Zidane - not for cards
received which are soon forgotten). The amount in figures is not big, too.
But we seriously have to take into account that other stations were
intentionally harmed by the deletion of QSOs without having done any
mistake, and every partner of a qso has the same right for this contact. It
is not fair to escape the consequences of own errors by putting the burden
on the innocent one. The partner in a qso is not 1 unpersonal percent of a
"qso-rate" but a fellow contester.
73, Chris DL8MBS
WAG Contestmanager
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Igor Sokolov [mailto:ua9cdc@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 30. Dezember 2013 19:54
An: Christian Schneider; cq-contest@contesting.com
Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Results of Worked All Germany 2013
Chris,
Thank you. Very interesting story about DL1A here
http://www.darc.de/darc-info/referate/dx/contest/wag/en/
I think, you should consider the approach used by CQWW contest and allow so
called XQSO to provide some sort of escape for those who made 10 min rule
violation unintentionally.
73, Igor UA9CDC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|