Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog

[W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>]

T48K

How do you know what evidence CQ has?  Bob has mentioned a couple of 
items.  You are debating the case based on the limited information 
presented here.
I love a great conspiracy but I would really like to understand why 
people believe the these 3 people have grudges or an agenda against 
certain people.  What exactly have I missed?  Please educate us so we 
are all on the same page.
Out of band

I do not agree with the lenient penalty applied to this conduct.  I have 
been pretty vocal about it.  How many people changed their logs to 
indicate that they were actually operating on a different frequency?  
Would that be cheating?  Covering up a violation with falsified log 
info?    I wonder if the DX ham lost any qso's due to NILs from people 
fixing their log after the contest?
W0MU

On 4/19/2017 8:53 AM, ve4xt@mymts.net wrote:
> If there is, as apparently there is, evidence of multiple incursions by US 
> stations into forbidden band segments, in violation of US law, why zero DQs?
>
> Why isn't the law-and-order contingent clamouring for justice? If the message is 
> "break the rules and you'll be DQd," isn't US federal law a significant rule 
> Americans should be expected to obey?
>
> Especially since many, it seems, persisted in completing the Q after having 
> been warned they were out of band. I can see if a station does it once, and 
> isn't warned. Hard to claim brain cramp if it's repeated, or is done after a 
> warning.
>
> Is it not possible foreign hams who were DQd for less would see that as bias?
>
> Ed does point out significant inconsistency in the DQ of T48K. I am curious, in 
> light of Ed's claim that cellphone bills were provided as evidence to the 
> contrary, which off-air method of communication the team is suspected of using.
>
> If the committee is going to observe a lower standard of proof, shouldn't that 
> also apply to exculpatory evidence?
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 19:25, Ed K1EP <k1ep.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:36 PM, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK.  That's enough.
> > >
> > > There was apparent evidence of off-air communication with VE3XIN and T48K
> > > in approximately 60 suspicious spots of T48K.
> > ​Off air?  ESP?  Just how did this happen?  We were on an island in a
> > somewhat remote area with NO phone, NO internet, NO WiFi.  If you had a
> > satellite phone, you would be put in prison.  We submitted our cell phone
> > bills with detail billing information for the weekend with no evidence of
> > this.  But Bob claims apparent evidence.  Show us the evidence Bob. ​Bob
> > wants us to prove the negative.
> >
> >
> > > To confirm this and other claims of innocence, SDR recordings of T48K were
> > > evaluated.
> > ​So off the air is now on the air.
> > ​
> >
> >
> > > During this review, several instances of T48K requesting to be spotted
> > > over the air, directly in violation of the rules were noted.
> > ​There were three instances of a new contester asking for spots on his
> > first shift in the contest.  We told him to not do it, he stopped, that was
> > it.  So if you break your rule, intentional or not, you are DQ?  How about
> > all the US stations we worked out of the US band?  Clear evidence in our
> > log of the frequency.  Not one US station was DQd.  ​
> >
> >
> > > At that point, no further investigation was necessary and the
> > > Disqualification confirmed.
> > >
> > > Those are the key facts of the T48K DQ.
> > ​Those are not all the facts and you know it.  You are trying to justify a
> > bad judgment call.
> > ​
> >
> >
> > > There were no hunches, feelings or other unsubstantiated reasons for the
> > > T48K DQ.
> > ​You clearly state "apparent​".  That is a hunch.
> >
> >
> > > No "friends" spotted anyone a few times leading to a DQ.
> > >
> > > 73,
> > > Bob W5OV
> > > CQWW Contest Committee
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mon, April 17, 2017 1:34 pm, Ed K1EP wrote:
> > > > On Apr 17, 2017 2:11 PM, "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is indeed time for some rules changes.  You cannot be DQing people for
> > > > the actions of others that we have no control over.  If you have proof
> > > > of collusion or cooperation great.  To tell me you can DQ me because my
> > > > neighbor thought he was doing something nice and spotted me a few times
> > > > is over the top.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that is exactly what KR2Q is telling you and what he has done. He
> > > > will DQ a station because others have spotted him without that station's
> > > > knowledge or consent and the station has no control over or communication
> > > > with the spotter.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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