Can I just point out that it would be unwise to believe unquestioningly the
version of events provided by the original poster here.
Peter G4MJS
On 6 Feb 2018 14:04, "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
I agree Ron. What other sport/activity just DQ's you or changes your class
and tells you nothing?
How is one to learn or understand their mistakes if one is not told what
the issue was?
This can be done without revealing all the methodology of how the decision
was made.
If we have someone that is a constant cheater they can just be banned and
you move on.
Life is too short, people cheat and will cheat and will continue to do so
regardless of the rules.
W0MU
On 2/5/2018 5:14 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> I respectfully disagree Jim.
>
> Of course, it depends on how the announcement is made.
>
> If I were asked, which I have not been, an announcement could have been
> posted on the contest blog or webpage, something to this effect:
>
> "The following stations were reclassified as per (pertinent rules) for the
> following reason: The requested recording was not made available in
> accordance with the rules. The recording was requested to verify certain
> specific log information" followed by the list of stations.
>
> An announcement like that serves the purpose of transparency by saying why
> the reclassification (or, in some other cases, DQ) took place, without
> getting into the specific nutz & boltz details.
>
> And a disclaimer to that effect... for example, "due to privacy concerns,
> and to protect the integrity of the log checking process, the specific
> contacts in question will not be publicly revealed" or similar verbiage...
> would make it clear, at least to most readers (conspiracy nutz not
> withstanding) that something amiss was suspected of taking place.
>
> I think it also would be appropriate to show somewhere (if not in the
> wording of the rules, in a FAQ type of addendum) that while the rules give
> the Committee the right under certain circumstances to request a recording,
> standing policy is that it will only do so when something unusual requires
> it. Which gets back to the point in Doug's email -- it isn't a secret, or
> if it was he kinda let the camel poke his nose in the tent.
>
> So why not make it clear, in a straight forward but non-threatening way,
> why
> the rules in question exist, and why they are most likely (but not always)
> to be invoked?
>
> That's what I would tell the Committee if I was asked. But they haven't
> asked me, so I don't expect anything from my suggestions.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Jim
> Brown
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 11:50 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Committee comments on audio
> recordings (was MM3AWD)
>
> On 2/4/2018 8:42 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> WRONG -- it also gives cheaters clues about what things they do can be
> detected, and, what cannot.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|