I have no problem with that, Tim, but continue to think that it would
enhance the committee's credibility if they named the infraction that
did result in the DQ. It's not unlike the tax evasion cases that used
to be brought against Mafia bosses, when "everyone knew" they had done
many other things. The prosecutors still had to make their case for the
charge they *did* bring. Or are you suggesting that the assistance
charge by itself might not have been sufficient for a DQ, but they got
arbitrarily tougher once the log padding became clear?
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 4/16/2017 12:08 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
N4ZR suggests:
Warnings shouldn't be publicized, but if someone is
listed as DQ, then any "shaming" has already been done, so putting the
specific violation alongside the call would be a pretty cost-free
contribution to confidence in the CQWWCC's processes
Often times the official reason given for disqualification is not the only
possible reason for disqualification. It's just the one that was easiest to
find and prove. Like putting Al Capone in the slammer for income tax
evasion.
TO7A's DQ in CQ WW CW 2014 for example. Officially disqualified for
unclaimed assistance, but further investigation shows log padding using
callsigns known not to send in logs, something that can be found if you
look for the pattern, but is harder to turn up in log checking.
I think the contest committee needs the flexibility to disqualify cheaters
for the reason that was easiest to prove.
Tim N3QE
_______________________________________________
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
|