I'm not going to second guess what happened in the email chain in
question, but having just done three business trips in 2.5 weeks
including one speaking engagement before a crowd of 1,500 people and
then chairing a three-day conference in Chicago, I can easily see how
one could not see a single email in an email in-box.
73 Rich NN3W
On 5/10/2015 4:23 PM, Jeff Stai wrote:
A five day window that is a random number of weeks or months after a
contest is not a reasonable window. "Random" as in "sometimes log checking
takes more or less time."
If we knew these emails were going out March 6 every year, then maybe. As
it is, if I knew I didn't cheat why would I be looking for this email
during some vague 4-5 week window?
I'm sure most of us have at one time or another been away from email for
more than five days. If you haven't you should try it some time. I guess I
will be adding a couple "in case of emergency" email addresses to my
soapbox from now on.
73 jeff wk6i
On Sunday, May 10, 2015, Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Note Randy's first email to Dim is dated 3 months after the contest. So,
not having internet access on the way home to UT from FM isn't an issue. He
had 5 days starting March 6th to respond.
Did anyone else notice that Randy didn't even mention anything on the
reflector about the TO7A DQ until his May 7th post? Dim had replied almost
immediately to Randy's earlier post a couple days earlier about the results
being available, when he probably realized he had been officially DQed.
Plus, Randy sent the email about his possible DQ almost 2 months before to
the SAME email address that Dim used to post his responses on this
reflector.
Dim was given the opportunity to respond to the cheating accusations but
chose not to. If the committee had seen the YouTube video a couple months
ago maybe they would have taken a different view. Dim appears to be a very
accomplished SO2R operator.
Could he have made a mistake in his entry and really meant to submit it as
assisted? He surely could have discussed this with Randy and could have
been reclassified instead of being DQed. He chose not to make contact.
The rule says if you don't respond to a cheating accusation that the
decision is final. His DQ is almost more due to that fact than if he really
cheated.
Maybe in the future contact information should be required with an entry
in case of discrepancies so contact can be made to discuss them.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|