Oh it's not really a difference.
It's like asking someone for their resignation versus firing them. Same
thing happens - the person is gone. The only difference is one looks better
on paper for future endeavors.
So for all intents and purposes it's a DQ, just not in name. The CC is
being lenient. I'm sure they could DQ if they really wanted to. They've
done this for others.
Ria
N2RJ
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:01 AM DXer <hfdxmonitor@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rudy and group,
>
> Serious question...it has to do with terminolgy. Is this really a DQ?
> W4PA's message to CX2DK does not use the term DQ, but reclassification.
>
> As you wrote below, there was no violation, but a non-compliance situation.
>
> Not taking sides, but DQ seems to strong for what happened.
>
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>
>
>
> On 2017-03-03 7:17 PM, Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest wrote:
> > Not knowing the full details, however, it seems that the station has
> been DQ'd solely due to the lack of audio recording. That is, no other rule
> violation or suspected violation was mentioned. So if indeed the log
> checker did not have any other concerns and the lack of recording was the
> only reason, the DQ seems a bit excessive.
> >
> > Rudy N2WQ
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|