You should watch his daily RHR web stream. He's not a happy camper about
the people attacking what he did. I can't say that I don't blame him
because the ARRL DX Contest rules don't really address what he did. Some
of you seem to be obsessed with this. Why don't you just cut it out and
let the ARRL make a decision if this was right or wrong, Just saying...
Jeff
On 3/16/2020 03:16 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
All logs submitted are here:
http://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php
It does appear as though he has submitted a log.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 15:14, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net> wrote:
Ed, if I may...
Do we know if W2RE has actually submitted a log for the contest?
If he hasn't, then I'm not sure what the Contest Manager can actually do. By
no means do I condone rules violations... but if he doesn't submit a log, how
can he be DQ'd or otherwise penalized?
Further, the thought occurs to me... if this operation was merely a publicity
stunt, to drum up attention to his commercial operations... are we playing into
his hands by constantly discussing this?
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>
To: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>; Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>
Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 16, 2020 2:53 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
I wanted to update this group that I have formally issued a protest to the ARRL
Contest Program Manager and the head of the CAC. Listing 10 violations of the
rules that were documented on the video.
The complaint has been acknowledged as under review by the Contest Manager.
Best Regards,
Ed N1UR
________________________________________
From: CQ-Contest [cq-contest-bounces+edwards=sbelectronics.com@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com [rjairam@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:33 PM
To: Jeff Clarke
Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
Additionally, W6RGG, N1ND, W3IZ and W9JJ are in the committee meetings.
With that said, I always found the structure to not fit well. PSC
handles ARES in addition to contesting and DX rules.
However, ARES and such has proposals evaluated by a separate working
group who reports to PSC, while DXing and contesting are handled by
DXAC and CAC and are tasked with things or may bring it up on their
own.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 12:06, Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com> wrote:
Sorry my list was outdated. On the ARRL web page it lists K0BBC, N4MB,
K5UZ, W7VO, N0DAS and WB4UDQ. I've worked a couple of these guys in
contests.
Jeff
On 3/16/2020 11:36 AM, Jeff Clarke wrote:
The current ARRL PSC consists of K0DAS, W3TOM, K4ZDH, W4OZK and
K6JAT. As far as I know none are active contesters so my question is
why they would know what's best as far as contests are involved? The
organization that CQ has in place is much better than the ARRL.
Jeff
On 3/15/2020 10:46 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
"I am not sure how ARRL goes about rule changes since it seems like
only the BoD can make a change and the CAC only works on things they
are asked to handle."
In practice it worked this way but this was revamped this past
January. Now the full Board does not have to approve every contest
rule change. The PSC advises the radiosport department and the
radiosport department will administratively make the rule change. The
only changes that the full Board has to approve with regard to DXing
and contesting is the DXCC program.
The PSC is made up of five directors, a vice-director, the 2nd VP, and
three staff members who are involved in radiosport at HQ. They hold
monthly teleconferences and bring final resolutions to the committee
meeting at W1AW twice per year. With the new process it would seem
that this could be turned around quicker for items that did not need a
full Board vote.
Regarding the CAC - CAC can deliberate on its own. There is nothing
stopping them AFAIK. They can bring rules changes to PSC. However,
more frequently they are tasked by the PSC to work on certain issues.
But I do not know of any prohibition on them deliberating on their own
and suggesting agenda items to bring to the PSC.
Bringing it to your own director may in fact be less effective. Not
every director knows about contesting and only five are members of
PSC.
"There would be advantages to having some alignment in the definition
of terms and in rules. For example, ARRL calls it unlimited and CQ
calls it assisted. No wonder people are confused!"
In some circumstances it would be. However, we should be cautious to
not have every contest be a copy of every other one, and if this
process has to work, it has to be fully collaborative with consensus
from WWROF/CQ and ARRL. For example, CQWW has now classified single
channel CW decoders as assistance. ARRL has not. I'm not sure of the
consensus of this decision on the CQ contest committee but if ARRL
evaluated it, I am not sure that we would come up with the same
result, since most people have the idea of an "unlimited" or
"assisted" category as using the DX cluster and not testing morse code
receiving skills.
CQ also has a slightly different entity list for its contests. ARRL
would not defer this to another organization. One reason for this as
explained to me was that sometimes foreign Governments or
organizations seeking independence will look at the DXCC list to
bolster their claims of independence.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 22:13, <k5zd@charter.net> wrote:
The event in question that started this thread happened in an ARRL
contest. That puts the onus on them to sort it out.
Contest rules can only be changed once per year in advance of each
contest. There is a balance between keeping things consistent while
also adapting to the changing times.
The ARRL and CQ contests have very different processes and people
involved in the rule change decision making. I am not sure how ARRL
goes about rule changes since it seems like only the BoD can make a
change and the CAC only works on things they are asked to handle.
The CQ WW committee is a relatively small group of very active
contesters who make suggestions to the CQWW Director (now K1AR). It
can turn pretty fast.
There would be advantages to having some alignment in the definition
of terms and in rules. For example, ARRL calls it unlimited and CQ
calls it assisted. No wonder people are confused!
It also doesn't help that ARRL divides their rules across many
documents that don't always align. The CQ WW rules are all in one
place on one page (with translation into multiple languages).
Things change when there is a need to change. It can take time. In
the case of ARRL, it also takes finding out who can actually make a
decision on contest rules. It is NOT the CAC. Thus the suggestion
to contact the Board member for your Division.
Randy K5ZD
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest
<cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=charter.net@contesting.com> On Behalf Of
Stan Zawrotny
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 1:32 PM
To: rjairam@gmail.com
Cc: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>; CQ Contest
<cq-contest@contesting.com>; Sterling Mann <kawfey@gmail.com>;
donovanf@starpower.net
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|