On Thu, 28 May 2009 03:51:35 -0600, "Jim Smith" <w0eea@sbbco.net> wrote:
> Someone at the A.R.R.L. apparently believes that everyone who is going to
> enter any one of their contests is privy to every email and letter they have
> ever sent explaining, defining, or redefining their rules for whatever
> contest the participants are going to enter. For example an email was
> recently sent to this reflector redefining a Rule in the 2009 ARRL June VHF
> QSO Party Rules. The email said, "Limited Rovers are able to make QSOs on
> bands other than the lowest four and submit them as a checklog."
>
> Yet the relevant Rule states clearly: "3.4. Limited Rover. Same as the
> "Rover" class above, but operation is permitted only on the 6 Meter, 2
> Meter, 220 MHz and 432 MHz bands. Output power limits shall be the same as
> those defined for the Single Operator Low Power category."
You are exactly right. Sean's opinion that you can operate on other bands
and submit those QSOs as a checklog is most definitely NOT what that rule
says.
If that's what the League had intended, the rule should read like this (BTW
I agree wholeheartedly that "should" needs to be changed to "must" if other
stations' scores are reduced by Qs "Not in Log"):
3.4. *Limited Rover*. Same as the "Rover" class above, but submits logs only
on the 6 Meter, 2 Meter, 222 MHz, and 432 MHz bands for contest credit.
Logs from additional bands used, if any, must be included as checklogs.
Output power limits shall be the same as those defined for the Single
Operator Low Power category.
Actually the Limited Multiop rules could stand some tweaking...
"3.6.2.Limited Multioperator: Stations submit logs with a maximum of four
bands used. (Logs from additional bands used, if any, should be included as
checklogs.)" Huh? So do I submit my log with only 4 bands and take out the
other bands I might use, or so I send it all in kit and kabootle? Perhaps
this is better:
3.6.2.Limited Multioperator: Stations submit logs with a maximum of four
bands used for contest credit. Logs from additional bands used, if any,
must be included as checklogs.
And extra three words makes a big difference.
I'm of the opinion that regardless of what the intent of the rule is, the
ruling should be on what it actually says, despite any unintended
consequences. Of course, that in no small part comes from being a police
officer for 12 years where I live my life with poorly written laws and
unintended consequences ;-).
Now, nobody at the League intends to be unclear or to write poorly worded
rules - and Lord knows it's pretty much a thankless job because when things
go well, nobody says anything but when they don't everyone complains - but
in all seriousness, does anyone at the ARRL ever send out proposed rules to
a group of contesters to see how they might be interpreted by the community
at large, or to see how they might be worded better given a specific
intent? I know the VUAC is supposed to advise on these issues, but it's
unclear to me if the Powers that Be go back to them with, "This is what we
have in mind, what do you think?"
73! Chris N9YH
--
Chris Burke
chris@n9yh.com
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|