VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] VHF+ Contesting Rule Changes

To: James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VHF+ Contesting Rule Changes
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 13:39:47 -0600
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
The ad-hoc committee is only charged with recommending new rules etc, not adminstration issues. I think HQ/PS&C/CAC is pretty much aware of the need to revamp the way in which the rules are presented but nobody has had the bandwidth to do it until the Centennial has run its course. Which more or less begins now although I am glad I am not on the "QSL Fulfillment Team" :-)

Yes, I think HQ staff and their support team could rebuild the rules without changing them (which would the full process be applied) along with stating clearly some of the definitions. The Membership and Volunteer Programs Dept Manager (NN1N) makes the call as to what is and what isn't considered a rule change. Personally, I would like to see all of the rules that apply to any particular contest be available as a "single-click" download. That would take some editing and a little web development but it's not completely out of scope.

In the absence of alternative rulings from HQ about what constitutes the boundary between SO and SOU, I would use the following from the HF Rules (http://www.arrl.org/general-rules-for-arrl-contests-below-30-mhz):

*2.2.1.*Use of spotting assistance or nets (operating arrangements involving other individuals, DX-alerting nets, packet, multi-channel decoders such as CW Skimmer, etc) not physically located at the station is permitted. (Exception: spotting information obtained from any source outside the station boundary via a closed or dedicated communication link may not be used.)

Before anybody gets cranked up about HF rules in VHF+ contests, remember that the original recommendation was only to create SOU in all ARRL HF contests and it was the P&SC which extended it to VHF+ without any additional discussion. So the original recommendation was based on 2.2.1 as above. That definition needs to be broadened and made less dependent on specific technology but it will suffice for now.

73, Ward N0AX



On 1/2/2015 12:57 PM, James Duffey wrote:
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

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