VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] [Packrats] Let's make the contests do what they were

To: paul newcombe <g6yzc@msn.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [Packrats] Let's make the contests do what they were supposed to do
From: "Steven M. Simons" <ssimons@manitousys.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 09:48:41 -0500
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Paul,
GM. 
Compelling comments from all in the thread.
Looks like the path is similar to what I hear (from my wife) about the high 
school system - Everyone now gets a gold star (just need to show up)... Those 
who do better get more than one star.
Let's just get on the air.

I have been on 2m in the mornings participating in the "205" activity.

73,
W1SMS

Steven M. Simons 
Manitou Systems, Inc.
ssimons@manitousys.com
tel.203.733.2110
Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4, 2015, at 8:47 AM, paul newcombe <g6yzc@msn.com> wrote:

> Sorry Bill, I have to disagree with part of you comments.  
> 3 categories is too many.
> They should make it "1" category BUT no one is allowed to keep score and the 
> contest committee will send every wonderful entrant a certificate to hang on 
> their wall telling them they they are all winners in life. 
> 
> For those of you who do not know me. I am a Brit...
> 
> I know far too many hams who do not enter the contests due to the "assistance 
> rule".     It seems to have been one of those rule put in there by the people 
> who believe anything but CW should not be allowed. 
> 
> My view is just go on the air and put on the square.
> 
> Paul N1RJXG
> 
> 
> 
> From: callbill@hotmail.com
> To: packrats@mailman.qth.net; vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 18:29:04 +0000
> Subject: [Packrats] Let's make the contests do what they were supposed to do
> 
> i.e.: Get people on the air.,,,,
>  
> I haven't heard a lot about this on this reflector or the other email lists, 
> BUT.....
>  
> Isn't it really ridiculous to have  13 (or is it 14) entrance categories for 
> the VHF contests? With decreasing participation it's getting to be that some 
> of the categories only have only one (or NO) entries!!! 
>  
> Not to play the "old guy" card, but I will anyway (Hi Wayne!!) In the 50's 
> 60's when I started contesting there were only 2 categories, single op, 
> multiop. The participation was at an all time high then. now, what's the 
> deal?? everyone gets a trophy??? OR.. no one wants to get on the air unless 
> they are guaranteed to win??>
>  
> All that being said, I will get on for the contests no matter what because 
> it's fun. I don't have any pretense of being able to WIN..  I just like to be 
> able to work the guys.. and operating when other stations are on the air is 
> FUN!
>  
> back in the day we made an occasional phone call to get someone on the air... 
> We still made the actual contact "on the air". 
>  
> I totally embrace the rover category. I think if I had my way there would be 
> THREE entrant categories, SO, MO, Rover. but realize this brings up new 
> issues.. can we just start to get SANE about this? Does anyone really think 
> 13 or 14 entrance categories is good for VHF contesting???
>  
> bill, K1DY (ex w3HQT)
>  
> From: rick1ds@hotmail.com
> To: k2txb@dxcc.com; packrats@mailman.qth.net
> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 12:33:10 -0500
> CC: hwardsil@gmail.com; w1msw@arrl.org
> Subject: Re: [Packrats] What N0AX says about "Assistance"
> 
> Everyone is a bit confused at this point as to what these new categories of 
> "unlimited" or "assisted" stations can or cannot do. Additionally, if this 
> applies to MAP65 for EME, does this also create new categories for the EME 
> contest? Patience--hopefully we'll all find out when Ward andor Matt make 
> this clearer on the VHF reflectors and answer some questions we have. 
> 
> From: k2txb@dxcc.com
> To: rick1ds@hotmail.com; packrats@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: RE: [Packrats] What N0AX says about "Assistance"
> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 08:54:11 -0500
> 
> Hi Rick & all.  That paragraph is hard to understand in the context shown, 
> and even in context.  The context is that it applies to the Single Operator 
> Unlimited.  However when it says “not physically locat4ed at the station is 
> permitted”, that is very unclear at least to me.  Does that mean one could 
> use cw skimmer if it is not located at the station, but could not use it if 
> it was located at the station?  Very poorly written rule, I think.
> 
>  
> 
> Also the exception, “spotting information obtained from any source 
> outside the station boundary via a closed or dedicated communication 
> link may not be used.”.  So does that rule out the internet if connected via 
> a wire line?  How about if you are receiving internet via satellite…?
> 
>  
> 
> I suspect that that exception is trying to say that one cannot set up a 
> private link to a remote receiver and use that for spotting (or for other 
> contest purposes I would presume), but why not say that?
> 
>  
> 
> Well, just my two cents…  I don’t like assisted classes for contests anyway…
> 
>  
> 
> 73, Russ K2TXB
> 
>  
> 
> From: Packrats [mailto:packrats-bounces@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Rick R
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:56 PM
> To: packrats reflector
> Subject: [Packrats] What N0AX says about "Assistance"
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
> ______________________________________________________________ Packrats 
> mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/packrats 
> (subscribe, change email, unsubscribe, etc...) Help: 
> http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Packrats@mailman.qth.net This 
> list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: 
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 
> ______________________________________________________________ Packrats 
> mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/packrats 
> (subscribe, change email, unsubscribe, etc...) Help: 
> http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Packrats@mailman.qth.net This 
> list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: 
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Packrats mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/packrats (subscribe, change 
> email, unsubscribe, etc...)
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Packrats@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>