As someone who operated in all 3 of the contests that weekend I never
even thought of going to a warc band. And I missed it being in the rules :-)
Even if I saw it in the rules I would never have gone there.
It will be interesting to see in the results how many people actually did?
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 2/5/2020 9:54 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest wrote:
You may be right Jim.
But the greater issue is, IMHO, is the implicit breach of trust between
contesters and the rest of the Amateur community, regarding contest activity...
ANY contest activity... on any of the WARC bands.
The vocal anti-contesters... and they are out there, just check out the forums
on eHam and QRZ.com... will jump on this and use it as excuse to smear ALL
contesters as liars and generally selfish, dishonest Amateurs. Do we really
want that?
This rules change should not have happened. That it was slipped in so quietly
can make one wonder about motives. I HOPE this was simply a well meant but
honest error.
73, ron W3WN
On Feb 5, 2020, at 6:54 PM, K8MR via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
wrote:
I don't do FT-*, at least not yet, so I may not be the most qualified person to
comment. But my observation is that FT-* sits on a specific frequency, so that
adding contest activity to that frequency is not likely to add to congestion
for other users of the WARC bands.
My greater concern would be that as is happening the the VHF contests, FT-*
activity detracts from the CW/SSB activity. In the case of Vermont, there is so
little activity there anyway, that I can't imagine it making any noticeable
difference. And for the few who are serious, adding another mode to work those
few Vermont people could be a feature, not a bug.
73 - Jim K8MR
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
To: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2020 6:27 pm
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WARC band contesting is a thing now !
I guess in the VT QSO party it's a thing. I sent an email to Mitch, W1SJ to
voice my displeasure/concern.
From http://www.arrl.org/contest-update-issues?issue=2020-02-05
and http://www.ranv.org/vtqso.html
".CONVERSATION
WARC Contesting?
Perhaps you missed it. I certainly did. In the rules of the 2020 Vermont QSO
Party <http://www.ranv.org/vtqso.html> , is the complete section on how FT4
and FT8 contacts can be made for the VT QSO Party. There are a bunch of
rules related to FTx mode contacts for the VT QSO party listed, including
how the standard exchange of grid square is to be used, and this, rule 6:
"6. FT8/FT4 contacts can be made on the recognized FT8 frequencies of
10.136/10.140, 18.110/18.104 and 24.920/24.919 MHz upper side band. No other
modes are allowed on 30, 17 and 12 meters."
The potential problem is that the frequencies cited in rule 6 are WARC bands
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WARC_bands> . There's been a gentleman's
agreement among... I guess, "gentlemen," that the WARC bands won't be used
for contesting. Certainly you won't find any ARRL Contests
<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_
201411.pdf> using the WARC bands. CQ Magazine and WWROF sponsored contests
also disallow usage of WARC bands for their events. The verbiage in the ARRL
Contesting Guidelines
<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_
201411.pdf> is the most explicit, stating the rules as well as the
rationale: "WARC bands are not used for contests, therefore moving to these
bands during contest weekends is an option for casual operators and rag
chewers."
Hams are a self-regulating sort, by and large. It would be pretty obvious in
other modes if someone were contesting on the WARC bands, since they might
have the tells of sending "CQ TEST." Or if someone was soliciting a contest
QSO without being obvious about it, they'd be taking their chances in
getting someone that wanted to have a genuine conversation beyond "59" and
their state. That kind of stuff really ruins the rate.
But with the FT modes, the "regular" non-contest exchange is basically the
same as the contest exchange. You really can't tell whether someone calling
CQ from a particular grid is trying to use the band for a contest contact,
or just wants a regular FTx contact.
I've made some FT4 and FT8 contacts both outside of contests and as part of
the WW Digi DX and ARRL RTTY Roundup. Outside of a contest period, I've
decoded people doing directional CQs, probably to work on their WAS
awards...or maybe they just like one of that state's sports teams. But in
the future, I might wonder if another QSO Party changed their rules to allow
contacts on the WARC bands as well.
In my opinion, allowing FTx contacts to count for the VT QSO Party may not
have been thought all the way through. Intended to spur greater
participation, it's not breaking any regulations but runs counter to
worldwide consensus that the WARC bands of 30, 17, and 12 meters should be
contest-free to give non-contesters some breathing room on busy weekends.
This has worked very, very well for more than 30 years. While one of the
smaller state QSO parties will not be too disruptive, there's no reason to
open the door to bigger events that certainly will cause problems.
<snip> N9ADG."
Wow- I don't have words.
-Mike VE9AA
Mike, Coreen & Corey
Keswick Ridge, NB
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|