Hi Mark
seems no more casual entries!
On CQWW SSB, SO10HP, some of the top where DQ or sent to checklog so the
official winning was YV6CR with 1013 QSOS and less than 15 hours of
operation, when a top score on this band should made more than 3.000 QSOs
and operate no less than 25 hours
I don´t believe YV6CR participate seriously in this contest, seems like a
casual entry. He was not competing for YV record because it´s set with 3700
QSOs, so, casual entry?
I don´t know if he was asked for audio recording, but at least 1st and 2nd
claimed where asked and reclassified as checklog
If next CQWW CW I want to make the CX record, 160 mts low power, 2 minutes
and 1QSO will be enough. And I must have the audio file. So 1 QSO is a
casual entry?
Maybe this is a way to force the merge of assisted and unassisted, with no
need of audio recording :-)
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
2017-04-17 22:10 GMT-03:00 Mark <markzl3ab@gmail.com>:
> The CQ WW Committee blog post about audio recording is a bit of surprise to
> me. Up until now I had figured audio recording would only be an issue in
> Oceania for the serious entrants (i.e. entries with lots of QSOs and/or
> hours on the air). In Oceania a casual entry of 1-200 Qs could easily put
> you in the top three of just about any single op single band category,
> assuming the category even had three entrants (I won the Oceania CW 40m QRP
> assisted category and set a new record with one QSO and two points a few
> years back). In its post the committee quotes the Asian 160m low power
> category. Looking at the 2016 SSB results there were no entrants in that
> category (assuming there wasn't an entrant(s) who was moved to a checklog
> for not audio recording) so any entry at all would have won it. In Oceania
> there was one entrant who made four QSOs.
>
> I would pick most if not all ops who perceive themselves as casual would
> not audio record their entry (or even know they had to). Is it really the
> Committee's intention to DQ casual entrants who end up in the top three due
> to a lack of other entrants, if they do not provide an audio record? If so
> then I'd suggest the rules should be amended to make it clear that any
> entry competitive or not which ends up in the top three is subject to the
> audio recording requirement because casual ops will not consider themselves
> competitive. It will of course have the effect of decimating casual single
> category entries in this part of world (such as it is) by ops who just
> enter for fun but who do not want to run the risk of being besmirched by a
> DQ.
> A better way (and it seems to me contesting is heading this way in general)
> would be for entrants to be able to enter any category they like but
> designate themselves as casual or competitive. If casual then they would
> not need to provide an audio record but could still be listed in the
> results database for their category (assuming they comply with the other
> rules). However they would not eligible for a certificate which would go
> to the highest competitive entries and who of course would need to provide
> an audio record on request. Also only competitive entries would be
> eligible to set records and to be listed in the top entrant lists in the
> results write up. At least this way an entrant can make a conscious
> decision as to how they want their entry to be treated rather than run the
> risk of a DQ if they are unlucky enough to enter a category with less than
> three other entrants.
>
> 73
> Mark ZL3AB
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
73,
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|