Hello everyone....this thread began when I made a comment about how the
current ARRL rules discriminate against the Single-Op stations. I
received several private emails, almost immediately, that were in strong
agreement. A few of the "I agree" type emails were posted to the
reflector. Les-N1LF made a couple of PRO postings that were well
reasoned and well written. Russ-K2TXB made some posts that were of the
CON type.
I believe that a correct summary of Russ' position is that the rules
should not allow Passive Assistance to ANY station, Single-Op or
Multi-Op. He feels that this is simple and fair. There is always great
danger when a person tries to summarize the position of another,
especially when the position is one with which he cannot agree.
However, I feel that I have stated Russ' position correctly.
I believe that the current rules discriminate against the Single-Op
stations(many agree, some do not) and that the simple and fair way is to
allow Passive Assistance to all the Single-Op stations. This method is
simple and fair as well. I believe this is the correct approach.
No station would be required to accept Passive Assistance, so those
wanting to be non-Assisted can continue on as before. It would be their
choice. Several have posted that the non-Assisted stations "always"
beat the Assisted stations anyway. If that be true, what are they
worried about? In any case, no Single-Op would have to claim to be a
(phony) Multi-Op and no Single-Op would have to compete against the true
Multi-Op stations.
The HF world has long ago made its peace with the various propagation
tools. They have Single-Op non-Assisted and Single-Op Assisted
categories. However, many have sent me emails that say, "NO Class
Proliferation". In other words they don't want any more new classes.
To these people, having a bunch of new classes is much worse than
allowing Passive Assistance to all. We have enough categories now,
although they are sometimes poorly aligned. No more categories is a lot
more important to these folks than allowing Passive Assistance to
everyone. I think that I fall into this group.
It is just a fact that the Internet and the tools that it provides are
part of our modern world and part of the fabric of Amateur Radio today.
Some of the modern tools provided are the (old HF) packet spotting
networks and the propagation information pages, such as DX Summit, the
Hepburn propagation pages, the APRS propagation pages, and various other
such resources. A lot of Amateur Radio operators have spent a lot of
time and money creating these tools for amateurs around the world to
use. And use them they do. As the CQ rules say, "Single-op stations
now routinely use web- and packet-based clusters for spots to locate
potential contacts".
The proposal to ban any kind of assistance in the contests just does not
match up with the reality of our times. As I said, the Internet exists
and spots exist--neither of which are going away. Les-N1LF posted:
"Rules that ignore advances in fundamental technology are doomed to
failure. Internet assistance is a tool used daily by a majority of the
VHF community. Having to suddenly abandon it during a contest makes no
sense at all".
Finally, the proposal to remove Assistance from Single-Op and Multi-Op
alike seems to be an attempt to set back the clock to the contesting
environment of the 1970s. Sorry, the time machine is broken. Times
change, technology changes, new modes arrive, old ways die off and are
replaced by more modern ways. Some seem content for stations engaging
in "casual" QSOs to use modern methods, but somehow, stations in
contests have to operate the way we did 30-40 years ago. More than one
post has said that "Contests are Different". For the life of me, I
cannot understand how or why. Contests are just a big "Activity Night"
where people keep score.
I want rules that are SIMPLE and FAIR. The CQ rules are....the ARRL
rules are not. I want rules that are non-discriminatory. I want rules
that promote stations making as many contacts as possible(never mind how
you found the other guy), which is after all the stated Contest
Objective, rather than restricting them in all kinds of silly ways. I
want rules that are friendly to the little stations, not just the big
established stations in the NE.
I would like to make this my last public post in this thread. Russ has
stated his position and I have stated mine. There has been some nice
discussion(which I always enjoy, even though it takes up a huge amount
of my time) and unfortunately, a post or two that were "over the line".
I always copy my VUAC rep on these topics. I suggest that everyone that
agrees with my position, should contact their VUAC representative in
support. Those that oppose, should go play a round of golf.....HI.
I hope to see you all in the CQ WW VHF contest next month. That is the
16th and 17th of July. Maybe 6M will finally be wide open by then.
73 Marshall K5QE
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|