CAC has been discussing this internally. I do suspect that any
evaluation of specific rules violation is a separate discussion from
rules changes that can happen.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 13:32, Stan Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ria,
>
> I am a member of the ARRL Contesting group and am waiting for this incident
> to be discussed there.
>
> My question was "Are the sponsors listening?" It would seem to be to their
> benefit to be monitoring this forum since it is the most active of the
> contesting forums.
>
> I'll repeat what I said in the quoted email:
> … taking this up with your ARRL regional representation is short-sided.
> They don't manage all contests. I think this forum is the right place for
> the discussion, but only if all the sponsors are listening.
>
> I simply questioned whether they are listening. I didn't accuse them of not.
> But, so far, there hasn't been any inkling that they are aware of the
> incident. In an ideal world, they would all be holding this same discussion
> in their own private forum. There have been several suggestions that they
> need to get their heads together and come up with a consistent, coherent,
> modern day model of contesting rules.
>
> Stan, K4SBZ
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 9:41 AM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stan
>>
>> ARRL has its own contesting reflector on groups.io and several of us monitor
>> it. Contacting your director or CAC representative will get the discussion
>> going. The CAC monitors the group discussion.
>>
>> https://groups.arrl.org/g/ARRL-Contesting
>>
>> WWROF is involved in CQ contests and they’ll probably be a good resource for
>> them:
>> https://wwrof.org/contact/
>>
>>
>>
>> 73
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 8:55 AM Stan Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Peter that the sponsors of the major contests now need to get
>>> together and hammer out some new rules/categories. Not just for this
>>> current situation, but with a better eye on leveling the playing field(s).
>>>
>>> This should include the overlays used by some contests for sub-categories.
>>> For instance, the overlay for tri-banders and wires. I have only wire
>>> antennas and I just cannot manage to rotate any of them like a tri-bander.
>>> Those trees are just too heavy to move.
>>>
>>> BTW, taking this up with your ARRL regional representation is short-sided.
>>> They don't manage all contests. I think this forum is the right place for
>>> the discussion, but only if all the sponsors are listening.
>>>
>>> Are they?
>>> ___________________
>>> Stan Zawrotny, K4SBZ
>>>
>>> Real radio bounces off the sky.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 12:56 PM <contesting@w2irt.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ed has it 100% right here. I'm good with innovation, but don't you dare
>>> > pretend to compete with folks who are keeping within both the letter and
>>> > spirit of the rules. I would strongly support the addition of an
>>> > unlimited/anything-goes class for such innovators and let them compete
>>> > against each other. But to allow these new technologies to compete with
>>> > traditional contest stations is a travesty in my book.
>>> >
>>> > Personally, I would like to see the contest committees from both CQ and
>>> > ARRL
>>> > sit down, along with perhaps the WWROF, and hammer out a new regulatory
>>> > framework for the major DX contests, taking modern technologies into
>>> > account. Redefine the categories and what level of assistance is permitted
>>> > in each; everything from a boy and his radio to full social media
>>> > interaction.
>>> >
>>> > The bottom line is that I want to compete on a level playing field. I
>>> > won't
>>> > be top-10 world in my lifetime, but I might be in the top-10 US and I'm
>>> > regularly top-5 in my division, section, or call area in the assisted
>>> > category, either SOAB-A/HP or M/S HP. My only assistance is the
>>> > traditional
>>> > telnet cluster and perhaps one day my own on-site skimmer. No remoting of
>>> > any kind, etc. I'll happily compete with folks using similar technologies
>>> > but if you lump me in with high-end remote stations using social media
>>> > then
>>> > my interest will wane.
>>> >
>>> > ---------------------------------------------
>>> > GO FRC!
>>> > Peter, W2IRT
>>> >
>>> > www.facebook.com/W2IRT
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+contesting=w2irt.net@contesting.com>
>>> > On
>>> > Behalf Of Edward Sawyer
>>> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 6:37 AM
>>> > To: Sterling Mann <kawfey@gmail.com>; donovanf@starpower.net
>>> > Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
>>> >
>>> > Sterling. If you read through your own email, you have validated
>>> > basically
>>> > all of Frank's violation list and then said well its all still okay. Its
>>> > not okay.
>>> >
>>> > And Ray does have responsibility for what is happening on his chat bar of
>>> > his live stream. He can shit it off because it can't be controlled within
>>> > the rules. But that would defeat the point of the social media
>>> > interaction
>>> > wouldn't it. And that the point. Contesting is not social media gaming.
>>> > If some people want to promote in as "demo stations" like Ray is doing,
>>> > wonderful. But its either a checklog or its a new category.
>>> >
>>> > Ed N1UR
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|