Duffey,
Thanks for passing this along. Seems odd that they'd issue new rules
(dated Dec 31) just a few weeks ahead of the contest.
73, Bob K0NR
On 1/1/2015 3:54 PM, James Duffey wrote:
Here are my comments on Wayne’s posting about the new rules and comments on the new rules in
general. W9RM has sent an e-mail saying that the addition of unlimited classes to all VHF contests
was announced late last summer. I can’t find reference to that in my quick review of PSC and
CAC minutes/reports to the PSC, but it is possible that I may have missed it in my hurry. There is a
reference to the CAC recommending evaluation of adding assisted categories to the VHF contests, but
I thought that the ad-hoc committee that was appointed was the result of that recommendation. Can
anyone can find reference to this being announced in the late summer? My comments on Wayne’s
e-mail follow:
Wayne - Thanks for the heads up on the new rules changes. Here are some of my
thoughts on the issue.
I too find it odd that the ARRL is going ahead with rule changes while the ad hoc
committee is still studying what changes in the rules will be good for contesting and
attract new activity. It seems like the process that led to these new rules could
undermine the committee’s effort to generate a cohesive, rational, and
encouraging set of rules. Or, perhaps the committee proposed these rules changes? It
would be nice to hear from someone on the committee or at ARRL HQ about how this came
to be. I would hope that someone uses one of the reflectors, or even the ARRL home
page to announce these changes and give some background as to how they came about.
Having said that, I think that the HQ contest staff is empowered to make these
sorts of changes. I believe that is how the FM and three band categories came
to be last year. Perhaps someone from the contest staff at ARRL could comment.
I too am concerned by the proliferation of categories. There are more
categories than there are NM section entrants in the January ARRL contest! In
addition to the obvious dilution of focus generated by additional categories,
there is a real impact on the contest activity, which can be negative. This can
be seen in the limited, four band, categories. One needs only to look to the
2008 rules changes. While the limited rover category was meant to attract new
rovers, all it really has accomplished is to siphon off operators from the
rover category to the limited rover category with the capability to be more
competitive with less effort.
When I inquired of the contest coordinator a few years ago about using assistance as a
limited rover or rover, I was told it would put me in the unlimited category. So that
is not a change in policy, although it is now specifically spelled out in the rules. I
guess my previous inquiry was a case of not asking a question if you aren’t
going to like the answer.
I find it interesting that although spotting assistance is allowed under the new rules
it is not defined as to what is acceptable assistance and what is not. Are the
committee’s original liberal assistance proposal what is considered assistance
or is it more limited, as in the HF ARRL contest definition of assistance, or
somewhere in between as is the case of the CQ WW VHF contest. I think without a good
definition of spotting assistance there is significant potential for confusion if not
abuse.
Of some interest is that the ARRL general rules for VHF contests do not have
this change, so perhaps it is for the January contest only.
Perhaps we should move this discussion to the VHF-Contesting forum? That is
probably a more appropriate forum for it. You might want to repost your e-mail
there. - Duffey KK6MC
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|