[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Re: [YCCC] More on club competition

Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: [YCCC] More on club competition
From: dennis.mcalpine@verizon.net (Dennis McAlpine)
Date: Tue Jan 7 16:40:19 2003
To change Ken's comments a bit, what is so stop the YCCC, or any other
unliited club, from setting up a number of sub-clubs, much as is done for
Sprints, e.g. YCCC #1, YCCC#2.  The only difference is that each sub-club
would have a designated geographic center and all of its members would be
within the appropriate milage of that epi-center.  Let's see now, can YCCC
EENY club beat YCCC NEMA?  Or maybe, it's YCCC NH vs. YCCC VT.

For big contests,  the subclubs could yield to the big parent club.  Now,
that's a win-win situation.  Oops, WIN (a.k.a. the Wireless Institute of the
Northeast for you new comers) has long ago shuffled off this court.

Dennis, K2SX

----- Original Message -----
From: <Dave_Hoaglin@abtassoc.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Cc: <kharker@cs.utexas.edu>; <yccc@yccc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:02 PM
Subject: [YCCC] More on club competition

> I would like to respond to yesterday's posting by Ken, WM5R.
> > Suppose that the YCCC decided, for the ARRL International DX Contest,
> > it would like to win the local club category of the Club Competition.
> > It submits a list of eligible members that happens to have only ten
> > on it, all of whom live within some 35 mile radius of one another.
> > this fly?  I don't think so.  That sounds a lot like "the club has
> > manipulated its number of entries to fall into a lower classification."
> I'm not sure what to conclude from this example.  It is highly
hypothetical and describes a  form
> of manipulation different from the examples in Ken's op-ed piece.  In
practice, I believe, a club is
> supposed (perhaps in registering as an ARRL-affiliated club) to designate
the center and radius
> of its territory (or its ARRL section, if it has chosen that approach).
So YCCC would have declared
> its 175-mile radius and could not change that to 35 miles.  The rules say
that the club "must submit
> a list of all club members eligible to compete for the club (not a club
roster) and which level
> (unlimited, medium, local) they wish to enter for each competition within
30 days after the contest."
> So submitting an incomplete list would be a violation of the rules.
Submission of logs is up to the
> individual member, who "must clearly indicate the club name in the
Cabrillo file header."  If a number
> of members submit logs naming the club, but are not on the club's list of
eligible members, the
> "manipulation" would be obvious.
> BTW, I think it would be a good idea to have each club's list of eligible
members, and the details of
> how its club score was computed, available for public inspection on the
ARRL website.  This is a
> simple matter of transparency.
> > In practice, the ARRL Contest Branch has used the membership of the
> > not just the list of "eligible" members, to determine the category in
> > each club participates in the Club Competition.  If a Local club has a
> > or two living outside of the club radius or ARRL section, but they do
> > contest (because, perhaps, this is a general interest ham radio club)
> > club might not have any trouble being considered "Local."  But once some
> > those distant club members begin actively contesting, or helping out at
> > multi-op, even if the club isn't claiming them as "eligible," at some
> > the ARRL Contest Branch can decide that the only reason they aren't
> > declared "eligible" is that the club is manipulating its entries to fall
> > a lower classification.  This exact thing has happened in recent years.
> > I think this poses an awful dilemma for a club member in that position.
> I am not able to speak for the ARRL Contest Branch.  The rules say that
the category
> (for unlimited and medium, at least) is determined by the number of
entries submitted.
> >From what I can see, this is what the Contest Branch does in practice.
For example, from
> 1992 through 2001 the number of logs submitted for YCCC in the ARRL
160-Meter Contest
> ranged from 17 to 36, and YCCC's club score was listed in the medium
category in each
> of those years.  I, personally, do not think that is appropriate.  YCCC is
definitely an
> unlimited club, and it should always compete in that category.  If it
can't muster the 51 entries
> for a particular contest, that's its problem.  (I know that ARRL DX and
CQWW DX attract far
> more interest within YCCC than other contests.)  I don't know how the
Contest Branch handles
> the situation in which a club declares itself to be competing in one
category, but its number of
> entries places it in a different category.  The rules do not resolve this
apparent conflict.  It
> would probably be appropriate to use the higher of the two categories.
> I don't understand your example involving a Local club.  If those members
reside outside the
> club's territory, the club is simply not allowed to claim them as
eligible, even though they are
> otherwise members in goodstanding.  The club would (as mentioned above)
indicate its
> intention to compete as a Local club, and that would be the end of it.  If
those distant club
> members begin to contest actively at their home stations, their scores
would not count for the
> Local club.  The situation gets murky, however, if those same distant
members help out in
> multi-ops within the Local club's territory.  You have a point there.  If
the club consistently declares
> itself to be a Local club, contest after contest and year after year,
their participation would be
> within the rules.  Whether it is strictly ethical may be another matter.
But if the same club
> sometimes declared itself to be Local and sometimes Medium (say, to count
those members'
> scores at their home stations), its status as a Local club might
reasonably be questioned.
> I don't, however, see a dilemma for the individual members.  The officers
of the club have to take
> the responsibility.  You have identified a gray area.  I see no benefit in
trying to remove all gray
> areas through highly prescriptive rules.  Instead, I would hope that
discussions like this lead to a
> consensus on what constitues ethical behavior.  Then we have to count on
the individual clubs
> and their members to behave ethically.
> 73, Dave K1HT     k1ht@arrl.net
> _______________________________________________
> YCCC Reflector
> yccc@yccc.org
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/yccc

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