As someone who has been VHF contesting for 15 years
now, as a little gun, I have finally got around to
offering my ideas on this proposal.
First I want to thank the ARRL for taking the time to
study this matter, and for soliciting our ideas and
comments. I wish they would do this on more of their
proposals.
Also, I want to state that I don't think that the
contest rules are broken, which means they don't need
fixing. I am perfectly satisfied with the rules the
way they are, and I think many others are also, but
people for the status quo don't seem to reply to
proposals as much as those who are angry and want to
vent about the current problems. It seems to me that
I just remember reading that VHF contest submissions
went up last year. Hardly the kind of result that
needs fixing.
In light of the proposal, I don't like any of the
proposed scoring changes, or other scoring changes
mentioned on the reflector. If we want to get new
people entering VHF contests, we need to keep the
scoring and rules as simple as possible. Distance
based scoring gets more complicated. Different point
amounts for different stations worked (rover vs.
others) gets complicated, etc. etc. At the least,
everyone would have to get new contest software.
Those who score on paper would find it more difficult.
Many might look at the rules, figure I have no idea
what all this means, and go do something else that
weekend. Again, if we want to attact newcomes to VHF
contesting, we need to simplify things as much as
possible.
Also, the ARRL's scoring proposal would offer little
incentive to add additional bands. Getting on 2.3g
and up can be pretty difficult. I believe that the
additional points are proper reward for taking that
additional challenge on. If all I get is a couple of
additional multipliers, I would do better to make a
couple of WSJT skeds on 6. Those would also be new
multipliers, and they would most likely be 3 point
QSOs, whereas the 2.3G Qs might only be 2 point QSOs.
I also have no problem with multiop stations being
able to work their own operators on 2.3g and up. It
might get those operators interested enough in
microwaves that they set up their own station on those
bands at home. Anything that encourages activity on
these bands is good, as this is where we are going to
be fighting the commercial interests for frequencies.
We have already had people try to get 2.3g from us.
In terms of rover rules, I like the older rules
better, and hope they return to it. I don't think
that grid circling or captive rovers are enough of a
problem to rewrite the rules for.
Don't take away bands from the June contest, or any
contest. Again, encourage activity. It seems like we
assume that many people are of the mindset "If I can't
win the whole contest, the heck with it. I am going
to the mall instead." I really don't believe that
limiting any contest to 6 thru 23cm only is going to
encourage someone who has a FT100, FT857, or Icom 706
to get into the contest if they weren't going to.
Elmering them and club presentations might, though.
I love the idea of having a VUCC challenge for grid
square on all bands combined. I personally have told
others that this should be done. Again, it will
encourage activity on other bands, which is definitely
needed.
That is my take on the major rule changes. I will
post another email shortly discussing other problems
with VHF activity-not directly related to these rule
changes.
73s John NE0P
EM04 currently QRV on 6,2 432, and hopefully soon on 1.2g
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|