Being a member of the VUAC I will respond to this. The short answer is yes we
do those things but we are only human and their are oversights. Frankly, we
just didn't think about this issue. As a result KX9X has to step in and apply
his interpretation, best guess, etc. For what it is worth I have no problem
with the reponse from KX9X. Yes, it may not be what was written but it is a
reasonable answer in light of what has been past practice with the limited
multi and other categories. This is a good lesson for those of you out their
who are reading these rules like they are the word of God or something. They
were written by people such as myself. It is difficult if not impossible to
think of every possible scenario and even more difficult to write the rules for
every possible scenario so lighten up and apply some common sense like KX9X has.
73
Jim, W4KXY
-------------- Original message from Christopher Burke <burke166@gmail.com>:
--------------
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 03:51:35 -0600, "Jim Smith" wrote:
>
> > Someone at the A.R.R.L. apparently believes that everyone who is going to
> > enter any one of their contests is privy to every email and letter they
> > have
> > ever sent explaining, defining, or redefining their rules for whatever
> > contest the participants are going to enter. For example an email was
> > recently sent to this reflector redefining a Rule in the 2009 ARRL June VHF
> > QSO Party Rules. The email said, "Limited Rovers are able to make QSOs on
> > bands other than the lowest four and submit them as a checklog."
> >
> > Yet the relevant Rule states clearly: "3.4. Limited Rover. Same as the
> > "Rover" class above, but operation is permitted only on the 6 Meter, 2
> > Meter, 220 MHz and 432 MHz bands. Output power limits shall be the same as
> > those defined for the Single Operator Low Power category."
>
>
> You are exactly right. Sean's opinion that you can operate on other bands
> and submit those QSOs as a checklog is most definitely NOT what that rule
> says.
>
> If that's what the League had intended, the rule should read like this (BTW
> I agree wholeheartedly that "should" needs to be changed to "must" if other
> stations' scores are reduced by Qs "Not in Log"):
>
> 3.4. *Limited Rover*. Same as the "Rover" class above, but submits logs only
> on the 6 Meter, 2 Meter, 222 MHz, and 432 MHz bands for contest credit.
> Logs from additional bands used, if any, must be included as checklogs.
> Output power limits shall be the same as those defined for the Single
> Operator Low Power category.
>
> Actually the Limited Multiop rules could stand some tweaking...
> "3.6.2.Limited Multioperator: Stations submit logs with a maximum of four
> bands used. (Logs from additional bands used, if any, should be included as
> checklogs.)" Huh? So do I submit my log with only 4 bands and take out the
> other bands I might use, or so I send it all in kit and kabootle? Perhaps
> this is better:
>
> 3.6.2.Limited Multioperator: Stations submit logs with a maximum of four
> bands used for contest credit. Logs from additional bands used, if any,
> must be included as checklogs.
>
> And extra three words makes a big difference.
>
> I'm of the opinion that regardless of what the intent of the rule is, the
> ruling should be on what it actually says, despite any unintended
> consequences. Of course, that in no small part comes from being a police
> officer for 12 years where I live my life with poorly written laws and
> unintended consequences ;-).
>
> Now, nobody at the League intends to be unclear or to write poorly worded
> rules - and Lord knows it's pretty much a thankless job because when things
> go well, nobody says anything but when they don't everyone complains - but
> in all seriousness, does anyone at the ARRL ever send out proposed rules to
> a group of contesters to see how they might be interpreted by the community
> at large, or to see how they might be worded better given a specific
> intent? I know the VUAC is supposed to advise on these issues, but it's
> unclear to me if the Powers that Be go back to them with, "This is what we
> have in mind, what do you think?"
>
> 73! Chris N9YH
>
>
> --
> Chris Burke
> chris@n9yh.com
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|