I respectfully disagree Jim.
Of course, it depends on how the announcement is made.
If I were asked, which I have not been, an announcement could have been
posted on the contest blog or webpage, something to this effect:
"The following stations were reclassified as per (pertinent rules) for the
following reason: The requested recording was not made available in
accordance with the rules. The recording was requested to verify certain
specific log information" followed by the list of stations.
An announcement like that serves the purpose of transparency by saying why
the reclassification (or, in some other cases, DQ) took place, without
getting into the specific nutz & boltz details.
And a disclaimer to that effect... for example, "due to privacy concerns,
and to protect the integrity of the log checking process, the specific
contacts in question will not be publicly revealed" or similar verbiage...
would make it clear, at least to most readers (conspiracy nutz not
withstanding) that something amiss was suspected of taking place.
I think it also would be appropriate to show somewhere (if not in the
wording of the rules, in a FAQ type of addendum) that while the rules give
the Committee the right under certain circumstances to request a recording,
standing policy is that it will only do so when something unusual requires
it. Which gets back to the point in Doug's email -- it isn't a secret, or
if it was he kinda let the camel poke his nose in the tent.
So why not make it clear, in a straight forward but non-threatening way, why
the rules in question exist, and why they are most likely (but not always)
to be invoked?
That's what I would tell the Committee if I was asked. But they haven't
asked me, so I don't expect anything from my suggestions.
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Brown
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 11:50 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest Committee comments on audio
recordings (was MM3AWD)
On 2/4/2018 8:42 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> I think if anything, the lesson here is the value of transparency.
Announcing DQs (or administrative check logs) but trying to keep the reasons
private just raises suspicion.
WRONG -- it also gives cheaters clues about what things they do can be
detected, and, what cannot.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|