Doug’s message is great.
I think if anything, the lesson here is the value of transparency. Announcing
DQs (or administrative check logs) but trying to keep the reasons private just
raises suspicion.
Suggesting, as CQ did, the only reason for the reclassification was the failure
to provide a recording — and not how suspicious log entries could not be
corroborated with SDR evidence — means the scolding at the end of Doug’s
message is a bit misplaced. Surely we all have enough life experience our BS
detectors go off full steam ahead when someone, anyone, suggests “just trust
us…” The fact other committee members have, at times, been a bit condescending
when similar issues were raised certainly didn’t help.
But I give Doug credit for a good explanation all the same. This wouldn’t have
blown up like this had the committee got out in front of it instead.
73, kelly, ve4xt,
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Kudos for transparency. A little bit goes a long way. Seems a lot of
> us were unaware of the actual reason for recording. Seems like the
> recording is a 2nd chance for the operator to redeem themselves, after
> SDR recordings come up empty. This to me is a very reasonable
> position.
>
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:27 AM, DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL <kr2q@optimum.net> wrote:
>> It is not the practice of the CQWW Contest Committee to respond publicly to
>> comments about individual entries.
>> After discussion within the committee, the following short memo was deemed
>> appropriate.
>>
>> 1. As with all requests for an audio file, this log contained a number
>> of unusual events and QSOs.
>>
>> 2. Using our globally placed SDR network (which copied MM3AWD perfectly
>> well) we did not hear
>> those QSOs take place, so he was asked for a recording.
>>
>> 3. A recording was not provided, so the Contest Committee took the action of
>> exercising Rule XII (C),
>> which states: "If no recording is made available, the Committee may
>> reclassify to an appropriate category,
>> reclassify to Administrative Check Log, or disqualify the entry."
>> http://cqww.com/rules.htm
>>
>> 4. Of the three options available, Administrative Check Log was deemed
>> the most appropriate.
>>
>>
>> We don't ask everybody in the "top 5" for a recording. We need something
>> suspicious or curious.
>> Please see the July 23, 2017 BLOG, item #4:
>> http://cqww.com/blog/2017-cqww-rules-update-announcement/
>>
>> Here is an excerpt from the blog:
>>
>> [Editorial comment: It is important to note a few things about the
>> “recording” rule. First, 2016 was not the
>> first year for this rule. Second, the committee does not and will not
>> request a recording simply because
>> an entrant is in the top 5. The committee will request a recording when
>> something suspicious or curious
>> in the log is identified by the committee. This can be a statistical flag
>> or something identified after human
>> review. The committee does not request a recording in an attempt to “go
>> fishing” for something “out of the blue”
>> or “without reason.” If you are not breaking the rules or trying to stretch
>> the rules beyond the letter and/or
>> spirit of the rules, you are probably not going to be asked for a
>> recording.]
>>
>>
>> It would be helpful to any discussion on CQ-Contest if the commenters would
>> be familiar with the CQWW
>> Rules before jumping to and posting irrational conclusions.
>>
>> Doug, KR2Q
>> on behalf of the CQWW Contest Committee
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|