[CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting

[rjairam at gmail.com]

CAC has been discussing this internally. I do suspect that any
evaluation of specific rules violation is a separate discussion from
rules changes that can happen.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 13:32, Stan Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 at gmail.com <rjairam at 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 at 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 at 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 at contesting.com>
>>> > On
>>> > Behalf Of Edward Sawyer
>>> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 6:37 AM
>>> > To: Sterling Mann <kawfey at gmail.com>; donovanf at starpower.net
>>> > Cc: cq-contest at 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 at contesting.com
>>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest