Ward - I understand about sausage. :^)=
I think that one of the major tasks for the Ad Hoc committee should be to
consolidate all of the rules in one place. Included in that I hope would be
clear definitions and specific language as to what is allowed and not allowed.
I am not sure if they are undertaking that or not; I suspect that I am not
alone in my suggestion of this to the committee. Figuring out all the rules one
should follow for a VHF contest is a bigger task to the newcomer than it should
be and is a bit annoying even to the seasoned veteran. If the rules are not
changed, is consolidating them something the HQ staff could do on their own, or
would that require direction (and the accompanying delay) from the PSC?
In the meanwhile, without a clear definition of assistance, the new categories
could be a wild ride in January. - Duffey KK6MC
On Jan 2, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not sure I would want to see the actual diagram...something about
> sausage being made :-)
>
> The current rules have grown incrementally over the years with the technology
> changing far faster than the verbiage. This is hardly unique to the ARRL but
> the drawn out, multi-threaded process for rule changes pretty much guarantees
> the rules will be well behind the needs of the community. It's not a good
> idea to have the rules changing at every shift in the wind either. A
> re-balancing of the process is sorely needed and has been for a long time.
>
> Definitions are quite important and there are few except those sprinkled
> about here and there. Perhaps with the Centennial behind us, that would be a
> good project - to collect, reorganize, and re-state the rules of the world's
> largest radiosport program in a more understandable format. There's no
> reason for three overlapping sets of rules for any contest - it's an artifact
> of the paper era during which the League's processes were designed.
>
> > it seems to me that implementing these rules now will cause confusion with
> > what the Ad-Hoc committee is doing, recommending, or has done.
>
> Perhaps, but as I observed in the first post, anything the ad-hoc committee
> comes up with is at least a year away from implementation, probably longer.
> With a more engaged Contest Branch Manager and no competing year-long special
> events, there will be a higher signal-to-noise ratio for the process, I'm
> sure.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
>
> On 1/2/2015 11:37 AM, James Duffey wrote:
>> Thanks Ward for the clarification. To me, at least, this points out what a
>> convoluted path ARRL contest rules changes and implementation take from
>> inception to implementation. It is no wonder people get a bit confused
>> during the process, particularly if it is drawn out as how this one has
>> been. We have all seen the High School Civics posters on “How a Bill becomes
>> Law”. It would be nice to see something similar for how a rule becomes
>> changed or implemented in an ARRL contest.
>>
>> I still have a big concern about the new rules as there is no definition of
>> assistance in the new rules. I suspect that the restriction in the ARRL
>> General rules:
>>
>> • 3.14. In contests where spotting nets are permissible, spotting your
>> own station or requesting another station to spot you is not permitted.
>>
>> is the only assistance guideline that applies. So all forms of assistance
>> appear to apply except for self spotting. It is clear that the ARRL General
>> Rules for ARRL Contests Above 50 MHz has not been updated to reflect
>> assistance in the January contest. That will cause some confusion.
>>
>> Without any guidance, I suspect that most participants will assume that the
>> most liberal application of assistance applies. If left to one’s own
>> judgement there will be a lot of differing implementations, which will leave
>> people competing in the same class with different rules.
>>
>> As you say, the timing of the rules changes could have been better. Not only
>> is the lead time short, it seems to me that implementing these rules now
>> will cause confusion with what the Ad-Hoc committee is doing, recommending,
>> or has done. - Duffey KK6MC
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|