[CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Contest Multioperator Station Guidelines

[Jeff Clarke]

Mike,

Because you are an ARRL Director it probably would've been a good idea 
for you to just stay out of this discussion. You're sharing information 
that only someone who is on the PSC or an ARRL Director would be privy 
to. Your post came across as someone representing the ARRL offering the 
rational for this decision.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful but the explanation you're offering 
is very weak.  I mean come on... No contester I know reads QST the find 
out what the rules for a contest are.  Most look at either the ARRL 
Contest page or a calendar like WA7BNM. Saying the PSC had to make a 
rules change without consulting with the CAC because of a publishing 
deadline is ridiculous. If the powers to be don't consult the CAC for 
contest related decisions then why do you even need them in the first 
place? Plus you also have other quick means to communicate this 
information with the ARRL Contest Update email that many contesters 
subscribe to. It also disturbs me that the ARRL is making rule decisions 
based on something that people in Europe wants.

I'm a long time (40 years) ARRL Life member and support much of what the 
ARRL does but this whole thing is just plain wrong. Your comments would 
have been better served if they would've been communicated in the ARRL 
Contest Update and not this reflector.

Jeff  KU8E


On 10/23/2020 11:05 PM, Michael Ritz wrote:
> Let me explain a couple of things. First of all, everything I say on this reflector is from me, not officially from the ARRL or from the ARRL Programs and Services Committee members (PSC). I only offer this in the spirit of transparency, and can only respond to my thoughts about what happened.
>
> Second, there was no attempt on my part to slight the CQ contest rules team in the attempt to explain what went down on this temporary ARRL rules waiver. I was trying to bring out a point that I brought up to the group during the discussion: "CQ didn't make alterations to their rules, therefore why do we need to?" So, current CQ rules were a consideration, but were deemed by the committee to be not relevant in this case. I am reminded time after time that "ARRL contest rules are for their contests, and CQ contest rules are for their contests. They don't necessarily have to align." (Although I certainly wish they did...)
>
> Third, as I understand, this did not go to the CAC for two reasons: Number one was the very tight publishing deadline for getting the temporary change into QST, considering the major ARRL contest (DX CW) that is coming up fast in February. Number two: I repeat again that this change is temporary. If this were to be a permanent rule change I'm sure it would have gone from the PSC to the CAC as a tasking, and they could have mulled the pros and cons of it for as long as they needed to. For better or worse, we needed a fast decision to meet reason #1.
>
> Finally, in my eyes, this was a recommendation that came from the Radiosport staff at the ARRL itself, and was both written and vetted by them. BTW, those are the same people that will have to deal with the backlash of the proposal, and are responsible for figuring out how to adjudicate the contests with the modified rules. If you have a question regarding implementation, they are your answer source.
>
> Is this rule waiver perfect? No, and that's been pointed out. If the ARRL hadn't done anything people would have been lining around the block to complain about it come contest time. We did something we thought would benefit all participants of the contests during a troubling time, not only for the USA, but for the rest of the world too. Still, the torches and pitchforks come out.
>
> Now, ask me if I'll try to explain here anything the PSC does related to contests again... ;-)
>
> 73;
> Mike
> W7VO
>
>
>> On 10/23/2020 3:24 PM Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>   
>> Doesn't it seem wrong to anyone at the ARRL for someone to send an
>> exchange,(for example) like "DC" if they live in MD, VA, DE, NJ, PA or
>> wherever? (I didn't get out the calipers to determine the exact 100km
>> circle, but you get my drift)
>>
>>   
>>
>> I applaud your efforts and your heart is in the right place attempting to
>> drum up business, but you should've really reached out to contesters and
>> your CAC to vet the new rules.  I think they're slightly flawed. (and maybe
>> even illegal~!)
>>
>>   
>>
>> I have taken part in sanctioned distributed M/M's for a couple Canadian
>> contests and it was always with other VE9's..never with VE1's, VY2's,. VO1's
>> etc.  That would just be dishonest.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Time to take a step back and examine what you did there.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Mike , VE9AA..always in NB (if sending a VE9 prefix)
>>
>> p.s.- I am not against remote operating, where all the antennas and
>> transmitters are on one property. That's different.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>>
>> Keswick Ridge, NB
>>
>>   
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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