Hello again to all....I have not been able to get the Contest Branch to
give me a straight answer as to whether or not a Protest Log(a log with
NO contacts) would be counted as a "Log Received". Hence, I will submit
NO log this time. I do not want the ARRL to count Protest Logs in their
logs received totals so as to make their EME contest look healthy. IF
you are not going to participate in this EME contest, then do not send
in a Protest Log.
I am not asking anyone to NOT participate, if that is their wish.
Contrary to others, I don't try to tell people how they can and cannot
operate. IF you are as upset as I am AND you plan not to operate this
EME contest, either because there is no class for you(my case) or
because you want to protest this horrible decision, THEN do not send in
any log. It might be right to send in a letter to the Contest Branch
specifying why you did not participate--after the contest is over.
For those that might want some background on this mess, I have put on my
web site(www.k5qe.com) all my postings to the VHFContesting Reflector.
Just click on EME Assistance on the left hand side....that will take you
to a page listing the most significant posts that I have made as well as
a new and interesting idea. The background is important....it helps
someone to understand this issue......somewhat.
Paul's post is VERY important. The issue is complicated by biases and
prejudices....all of us have them. There are people on the VUAC that
are there solely to protect their "sacred cow". There are some hard
working, conscientious people on the committee too. The members of the
PSC should understand the weak signal VHF world, but in practice, they
are almost all HF guys--with the prejudices and views that HFers have.
I am sure that they cannot understand why deleting the Assisted classes
in the EME contest has generated so much passion. //
I am trying to wrap my mind around all the points that have been brought
up--both by the Anti-Assistance folks and the pro-Assistance operators.
I intend to try to combine them somehow and make a rational, reasonable
post. I just have not had time for that....I have had to answer all the
emails received from the little stations. They are, for the most part,
not very happy. I also would like to get some operating time
in.....HI. Until then...
73 Marshall K5QE
P.S. I did not see Paul's post directly on the Reflector. I don't know
if I just missed it or it somehow went astray. I am glad that I saw it
as part of Frank's post.
frank bechdoldt wrote:
>I disagree with Paul. What has happened in the past is 100’s of people have
>gave up contesting for various reasons. The reasons for quitting have never
>been examined. At least in Marshall’s plan there is feedback to the ARRl as
>to why you are not competing by turning in an empty log. The logs show that
>there are about 9 people in the contest for every log submitted. No effort
>has been made to know why. I am quite sure over half of them are casual "drive
>by" participants. But I too do not turn in a log unless I mean to compete. I
>do not compete as often because I see the rules as flawed. So why not turn in
>a log that says Hey I’m here, willing to participate if you do more to
>accommodate my legitimate situation.
>
>I think the loss of the assisted class makes no sense when the ARRL says they
>are trying to grow the number of logs. Eliminating a class rather than trying
>to accommodate growth is a big move backwards. In principle and if not in
>application is bigger than the rover issue I have.
>
>Us as a community will slowly get picked off one by one by one as the
>political whims that come and go if we do not stand together. It has happened
>with the rovers because 90 percent of the vhf’ers do not rove. It has
>happened to the EME assisted because 95 percent of us are not on the moon.
>What’s next Portables? Multiops? Home stations? I guess it matters on who is
>on the committees and what awards they want to complete for themselves. This
>is why no one on a committee should ever be allowed to do more than a check
>log. The refs do not play in the basketball games, though they sometimes bet
>on them. There is a definite conflict of interest.
>
>The ARRL will look the other way as long as qsos keep coming in to argue that
>we are using the bands. No matter how the QSOs are generated and no matter
>how far they are apart. Its time to put a charter down for VHF contesting and
>find a direction that a majority of us can agree on and remove some of the
>politics. Otherwise the papers on your walls are purely based on the politics
>employed to obtain said paper.
>
>k3uhf
>
>
>
>Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:02:45 -0700
>From: k7cw@yahoo.com
>Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Whats up with the ARRL?
>To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com; k3uhf@hotmail.com
>
>
>The Programs and Services Committee has a lot of stuff on their plate. Most of
>it's members are not knowledgible about the VHF weak signal world, but they
>want to help. Hence, they created the VUAC, whose members have their own
>individual biases and specific lack of knowledge and/or experience.
>Recommendations from the VUAC are certain to be weighted by their own biases.
>Beyond that, I think that there is an ongoing "need to have contests run like
>on HF" mentality and pressure being pushed on ARRL officials by those who
>should have no say, such as contest log scoring volunteers, as an example.
>Officials in the ARRL rely on these volunteers to take care of a lot of work
>that needs to be done and must be grant them listening time. There is also a
>large lobby from many old corp EMEers who have influence by virtue of past
>contributions to amateur radio and the League.
>
>So, it's not just a matter of the League officials not doing their job. It's
>more complicated than that. People on the PSC have indicated that they will be
>open to input regarding this "no assisted" rule. The doors haven't been locked
>on this.
>
>Something might be said for pushing for change, but this kind of activism is
>unwarranted. Pushing to have people boycott contests is not called for.
>
>73,
>Paul, K7CW
>
>--- On Sun, 8/9/09, frank bechdoldt <k3uhf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>From: frank bechdoldt <k3uhf@hotmail.com>
>Subject: [VHFcontesting] Whats up with the ARRL?
>To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 9:04 AM
>
>
>
>Though I generally try to encourage vhf activity, it seems that it may be a
>time to make a statement to the ARRL. Marshall suggested sending in empty
>logs in response to the EME rule change. I am not versed well in EME but I
>think he has a point. Un assisted may be the ultimate goal, and it is
>definitely more of a challenge, but the assisted should be there to help those
>to the ultimate goal if they can ever reach it.
>Compare it to golf, most of us will never be pros, but we still enjoy the game
>as an amateur or with a handicap. It seems that the ARRL has wiped out the
>amateur and the Handicaps in this arena.
>This strikes me as odd considering how they have reached out to encourage
>growth in other VHF contests such as the rover category. Its my opinion that
>they botched up roving as well and tried to fix it with a band aid when it
>needed a major overhaul. That being said, at least the effort was there to
>encourage participation even if the PSC chose to ignore some of the
>suggestions of the VUAC.
>In comparison to that debacle, it seems that the ARRL went the other way with
>the EME contests. This shows a total lack of direction from the ARRL. It also
>demonstrates that they are no better then a boat with no sail or engine and
>they will simply go where the winds and currents of politics go.
>This leads me to believe that the ARRL contests are fundamentally flawed and
>lack any serious sense of purpose or vision. I believe in some cases like
>grid circling on microwave bands they are only manufactured short range QSOs
>to justify the monopolization of otherwise unused spectrum and this is why the
>ARRl allows it to continue.
>Its time we took a honest look at ourselves as amateur radio operators. We
>have a long history of giving to the human race in various ways. But we get
>down right mad if they threaten to take away some spectrum way up in the
>microwaves that we will never use more than a few MHZ of. If that technology
>can be put to better use then we should give it up.
>Or better yet, maybe its time to find a better way to use that spectrum
>ourselves and seek to redefine our licenses as to help more people. We have
>let the confines of our licenses let technology pass us by and we are becoming
>irrelevant unless a natural disaster hits.
>I challenge the ARRL to do something useful and to lobby for a redefinition of
>our privileges on the microwave bands. One idea ; Let Amateurs set up
>moderate powered wireless network nodes in our spectrum above 2.4 ghz and let
>non hams buy equipment to connect to them. Imagine a more free internet using
>ham technology. There has to be better ideas than this. If we are to
>continue we must make ourselves relevant.
>All of this shows that I think the ARRL is lost. The contest system is
>seriously flawed. It can never be perfect but the way they run it is half
>hearted and subject to too much politics and lacks any vision or sense of
>direction. The things that some of us do to get the little pieces of paper
>are sometimes ludicrous and the fact that there is no real tangible standard
>makes them somewhat meaning less.
>If there was a way to recall the PSC I would do it. For now I agree with
>Marshall, if you are alienated due to the lack common sense in the rules just
>send in an empty log. Do the contest and work towards your VUCC. At least
>there is a sense of direction with that award and a definite standard and the
>politics behind it are laid to rest.
>
>k3uhf
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|