Am I correct to assume that the CQWW Committee will not be listening to every
moment of every recording made by every top five entrant? But rather they will
focus on ones where there is already some reason to suspect some significant
rules violation?
So why is it necessary for each top entrant to be able to prove they are
innocent, rather than allowing, but not requiring, anybody to submit a
recording in their defense as proof that any suspicions were unfounded? Is the
Committee planning to make these recordings public, just as logs are now made
public?
And what will happen if an eighteen minute gap is discovered, when at a
critical time the operator leaned over to adjust the amplifier and just
happened to hit the wrong key on the recorder?
73 - Jim K8MR
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org> wrote:
>
> I think the point a few folks are making is that there are some casual
> participants who are simply in it to have fun. They may be interested in
> their score, but they aren't necessarily striving to be better and better
> contesters.
>
> For that crowd, the folks who fill the logs of the folks getting Top 5
> finishes, you want as few impediments as possible to avoid discouraging them
> from participating and sending in their logs.
>
> That's why limiting the requirement of a recording to those entrants who can
> reasonably expect to be in the running for a top 5 finish makes a certain
> amount of sense, assuming of course that there is some allowance for folks
> who unexpectedly do well.
>
> I have no strong opinion on the merits of requiring a recording in the first
> place, aside from noting that it's surprisingly easy to comply with.
>
> --
> Michael Adams | mda@n1en.org
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|