Thanks Ria.
As I only casually operated, I don't have much of a log worth submitting, so I
wasn't aware of that.
That answers the first question.
The second remains open.
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>
To: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Cc: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>; Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>;
CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 16, 2020 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|