[CQ-Contest] Merging Social Media and Contesting

Jeff Clarke ku8e at ku8e.com
Mon Mar 16 11:44:56 EDT 2020 

Sorry my list was outdated.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 at 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 at 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 at contesting.com> On Behalf Of 
>>> Stan Zawrotny
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 1:32 PM
>>> To: rjairam at gmail.com
>>> Cc: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com>; CQ Contest 
>>> <cq-contest at contesting.com>; Sterling Mann <kawfey at gmail.com>; 
>>> donovanf at 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 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
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list