VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] What was the true intent of the changes?

To: VHF Contesting eMail Remailer <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] What was the true intent of the changes?
From: Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com>
Reply-to: w2ev@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
--- On Sat, 7/26/08, Jim Worsham <wa4kxy@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Frankly, I am taking a wait and see attitude on this.  All
> we have now is a sample of exactly two contests (January and
> June) and a bunch of controversy based on some comments made
> in one entrants soap box.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Jim,

The intent of the rules changes is honorable -- there is no question in my mind 
on that fact. People volunteer to be members of the VUAC because they want to 
make things better. Sadly, their input is "digested" by folks who may have a 
different set of priorities.

The VHF contesting community is faced with constant drama and agitation because 
the premise on which the Rover category rules were originally penned was 
fundamentally flawed.

The original flaw has been amplified by follow-up rules modifications, 
resulting in a Rube-Goldberg-like Rover Rules system (a Rube Goldberg machine 
is a deliberately overengineered apparatus that performs a very simple task in 
very indirect and convoluted fashion. - Wikipedia)

The solution will become evident only if/when the powers-that-be see the 
situation for the Rube Goldberg Machine that it is.  Until then, expect the 
topic of Rover Rules to continue to surface, regularly.

Regards,
Ev, W2EV



      
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>