Gotta love our moderators letting this through.
On 3/4/2017 4:02 PM, Ria Jairam wrote:
People are reading too much into this.
It was the same effect (in this contest) as a DQ, just without the harsher
penalties. It's similar to the red/yellow card system that was implemented.
In a wider context it was more lenient and I believe this was on purpose.
Give him a slap on the wrist rather than throwing the book at him. It has
been done before.
BTW for the snarky responses from Steve N2IC, W0MU and others, yes I can
and do read the rules, as well as answer the surveys when rule changes are
proposed. I've been licensed for almost 20 years now and I have scored in
most contests higher than W0MU actually, with plaques on my wall to prove
it. So I know a thing or two. :)
Anyway, don't read too much into what I'm saying. The basic premise is
there - it could have been a "full" DQ but they chose not to because
apparently they wanted to be lenient. C
Ria
N2RJ
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:48 PM, DXer <hfdxmonitor@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ria,
I hear you...but based on what we know, I think there are differences
between this case, and the others discussed on the list recently.
In other cases, the info that reached the list did mention the suspected
violation/s. We don't know about a violation in this case, up to now.
The only difference is one looks better on paper for future endeavors.
And this is the point, by calling it a DQ the OM is being put in the same
basket as the other more serious violators. It may be deserved, may be not,
we simply don't know.
For reasons that only the OM and the CC know, a recording was not
presented when requested, a case o non-compliance with post-contest rules.
I'm sure they could DQ if they really wanted to.
Nothing wrong with that, but it was not the case, it was a
reclassification.
73 de Vince, VA3VF
On 2017-03-04 10:11 AM, Ria Jairam wrote:
Oh it's not really a difference.
It's like asking someone for their resignation versus firing them. Same
thing happens - the person is gone. The only difference is one looks
better on paper for future endeavors.
So for all intents and purposes it's a DQ, just not in name. The CC is
being lenient. I'm sure they could DQ if they really wanted to. They've
done this for others.
Ria
N2RJ
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:01 AM DXer <hfdxmonitor@gmail.com
<mailto:hfdxmonitor@gmail.com>> wrote:
Rudy and group,
Serious question...it has to do with terminolgy. Is this really a DQ?
W4PA's message to CX2DK does not use the term DQ, but
reclassification.
As you wrote below, there was no violation, but a non-compliance
situation.
Not taking sides, but DQ seems to strong for what happened.
73 de Vince, VA3VF
_______________________________________________
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
|