Tree,
My suggestion is to first do exactly what you propose... point out the
discrepancy to the operator involved and await explanation. It is POSSIBLE
that there might be a legit reason for the busted call (for example, maybe
the station had a bug creep into their keyer string and was unwittingly
sending the wrong call).
But once extenuating circumstances have been ruled out, if you have proof
"beyond a reasonable doubt" that the station was running SO-A and not
unassisted, I see that you have two choices:
(1) Automatically reclassify the log, telling the operator why -- and
cutting this break, if you choose to do so, only for a "first time offender"
and IF the transgressions were mild.
(2) DQ the log for this year's contest. Further penalty: The operator can
not enter the same contest in any category the next year, and this to
include operating as an op or guest op at another station in any capacity.
(Of course, trying to prevent them from operating is another matter, but if
they do so, their log -- or more correctly the log of whatever station they
operate from -- automatically gets reclassified as a non-competitive check
log).
It may sound harsh, but I don't know of any other realistic penalty that a
contest committee can enforce.
And I would definitely include the "no log next year" to include any form of
competitive operating in the following year's contest. DQ should mean DQ,
no loopholes.
IMHO. YMMV. VWPBL(STn)
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:54:40 -0800
From: Tree <tree@kkn.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] I can see the difference...
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
<clip>
While reviewing the SS CW logs - I have found at least one case of a
unassisted operator working a busted callsign on packet - within a few
minutes of the busted call being spotted. The QSO was a dupe for the
station being worked. Let's assume for a minute that I find a few more
cases like this in their log (I haven't put the work in yet) and prove
without any doubt that they were using packet. What would you think the
natural progression should be?
I would think something like this would be right:
1. Send a letter to the station - without the data - and ask if they have
submitted their log in the wrong category. If they change it - no harm done
(except they should be put on a packet watch list).
2. If the claim they were unassisted - I would think presenting the data and
asking for a response would be next (a la FCC). However, most any response
I could think of would result in DQing their log.
The question I wanted to ask was - if he is DQ'd - basically caught lying,
what should the penalty be with respect to future contests?
Tree N6TR
tree@kkn.net
PS: If anyone out there reading this suddenly remembers they entered the
wrong category in the SS - now would be a good time to resubmit your log.
PPS: Packet sucks. I can go on and on about why - but this isn't the right
reflector.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|