Actually, it often is.
Having served on the CAC for a number of years, as well as with NCJ, it is
not always as easy to articulate the rules as you might think. Many of the
rules can have multiple interpretations and situations one never even
considers when the rules are written. If you try and explain every possible
situation that could ever occur in the contest rules, you are going to end up
with a very long , complex document that is very difficult for the casual
reader to get through even if they were motivated to do so. A recent
example that the CAC discussed had to do with the RTTY Round-Up off time
rule.
The existing rule, as currently written, is very hard to understand. Yet
, when we tried to add more verbiage to explain it further, it got even
more complicated. I think you need to reach some compromise between
conciseness and thoroughness in contest rules.
My feeling has always been that the best approach is to state the basic
rules as clearly and concisely as possible and then include an FAQ document
for all the special cases and interpretations. For CQWW last weekend, I had
a couple questions on Club Competition that were not addressed in the
rules. But when I went to the FAQ, it answered my questions very well. I know
that the League has an FAQ document for Field Day that answers lots of
questions and keeps the basic rules reasonably easy to understand. I think if
the league did this for all contests, it would help with issues that are
continually discussed on this and other reflectors before and after each major
contest. It will also reduce the wear and tear on the individuals who
manage these contests.
73,
Al, K0AD
In a message dated 10/29/2013 10:31:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
w0mu@w0mu.com writes:
Is it that hard to say
in the rules what is really meant?
Mike W0MU
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|