Let me see if I've translated this properly - we need more VHF QSO fodder,
just not those filthy HFers (who seem to have figured out how to get a lot
more people operating their contests with all those silly restrictions)?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:20:27PM -0600, Marshall Williams wrote:
> RRR....if we could just get the HFers out of the world of VHF, most
> things would work better.
>
> The VUAC made some very good changes to the VHF contest rules.....they
> just did not go far enough. All the nit-picking restrictions are the
> results of HF contesters injecting their way of doing things into VHF
> contesting. There needs to be a General Rules for HF contesting and a
> General Rules for VHF contesting. These two sets of rules do not
> necessarily have to be closely related, since the nature of HF and VHF
> contesting is significantly different. If the VUAC were to propose a
> new set of rules that removed all the silly restrictions, the HF old
> timers at ARRL would swat them down. It is most discouraging.
>
> Take a look a the rules for the CQ VHF contest. Basically, anything
> goes. You can look at the Internet(anywhere in the Internet, I
> believe). The prop logger pages, spotting pages, realtime scheduling
> pages, APRS, whatever. You can make schedules on line, you can call
> them on the phone and remind them to get on. You can do whatever it
> takes, BUT you still have to make a VALID contact. The CQ VHF contest
> is fast becoming one of the Majors precisely because it is not burdened
> down with arcane restrictions that were put there by HF ops that have no
> clue what we do.
>
> VHF contesting should about making the contact now about HOW you found
> the station on the other end. Either you can work them, or you can't.
> If you can work a station, how you found out that he was there is
> immateriel. If you can't work the station, all the restrictive rules
> are meaningless anyway. Focus on the CONTACTS.....the rest will come
> along nicely. 73's to all ..... Marshall K5QE
>
> aa4zz@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Perhaps this change would be a good time to review the General Rules and see
> >if some of them should be altered for VHF. It seems that often the issues
> >that arise are with the general rules not the?VHF Rules and have to do with
> >rules that mainly make sense in the HF world.
> >
> >73 Paul AA4ZZ
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Kenneth E. Harker <kenharker@kenharker.com>
> >To: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
> >Cc: VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >Sent: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 4:31 pm
> >Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] rules
> >
> >
> >
> >On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 02:06:03PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Tom Staley wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The only thing that would make it easier would be if all of the rules for a
> >>>given contest were in one site or document, not 2 or 3.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Yeah, pretty much the only way to make this all easier is to keep the
> >>rules to a minimum, and in ONE place.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >My understanding is that part of the reforms in contest coverage/promotion
> >that have already begun (see the February, 2008 QST) within the ARRL Contest
> >Branch will be to do just that. The rules were originally split into three
> >parts (General, HF/VHF, contest-specific) mainly to save page space in QST,
> >and there's no reason to do that in the web presentation of the rules. I
> >think it will be real soon now that the Contest Branch web site will start
> >displaying the rules for a contest in their entirety in one document.
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|