If someone does it repeatedly, they are very likely doing it deliberately,
for example. A one-off is probably an accident. Twice and more, not so
much.
Also, a low scorer with low hours, deliberate or not is harming no one.
They probably just submitted a log to help the contest organizers with
scoring and didn't even bother to properly check the category (I've done
that).
I just don't see the need for zero tolerance and excessive public
humiliation, where the contest isn't fun anymore and where we end up
driving away casual ops who just want to make a few QSOs and feel good
about that.
I do think high scrutiny should be placed on competitive stations, to the
point where we should have cloud based (or cloud connected) loggers and
electronic surveillance for serious (top 10 world and US) competitors.
Ria
N2RJ
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:41 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
> How can you tell which violations are deliberate vs accidental? Rules
> are written so that intent is not considered. Either you did it or you did
> not.
>
> Why publish the calls of DQ stations did they self spot on purpose without
> knowing the rules etc.
>
> W0MU
> On 4/14/2017 8:43 AM, Ria Jairam wrote:
>
> I"m not sure what a hall of shame online would accomplish, but I guess if
> you want to go zero tolerance with rules violations this would be the way
> to go.
>
> My only stipulation is that the rules violation has to be deliberate, and
> not accidental.
>
> 73, Ria, N2RJ
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Bravo, Mike. Let me extend the thought a bit further. The CQWW Committee
>> needs to be transparent and specific about its criteria for various
>> actions. What warrants a warning, versus what warrants a DQ? What repeated
>> infractions from one year to the next warrant a DQ?
>>
>> The old yellow card/red card system was an attempt at this. Nobody is
>> asking *how* they caught the cheaters, just what the penalties are for
>> various offenses, either current or repeated. That's the only way they will
>> get pastthe perception that they are being arbitrary, favoring a particular
>> nationality and so on.
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
>> at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
>> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
>> For spots, please use your favorite
>> "retail" DX cluster.
>>
>>
>> On 4/13/2017 7:25 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>
>>> CQ chose only to publish stations that were Disqualified.
>>>
>>> How about a list of all stations that were found to have broken a
>>> rule(s) and the penalty for doing so.
>>>
>>> How about a lot more transparency.
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>>
>>> W0MU
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
|