[RTTY] BARTG rule changes

[Thom]

So the way I read the rule changes...

My peanut whistle of a station will be using 1 transmitter of 100 watts 
output and operates all bands will be in the SOAB category. Right?  If 
in the future of I go SO2R, I have no idea what category I will be in.  
Maybe none at all?

As for the championship I doubt I will ever get close to even qualifying 
for it given my limited antenna situation. I am making and will continue 
to make improvements on that front.

The rule changes confused me at first...but maybe I still don't quite 
understand them.

73

Thom KI8W

Everyone in the USA and other areas that celebrate it...have a great 
turkey day.



On 11/24/2016 18:21, scottmcleman36 at gmail.com wrote:
> I didn’t say I didn’t like the rules.
> Just the naming of the categories may cause some confusion for some regulars, who are potentially unaware of the rule changes.
>
> I thought the whole point was to encourage people to join in and attract new contesting blood.
> Not discourage them.
>
> Making life easier would see turnouts flourish, I’m quite sure of that.
>
> But fair play to BARTG for stepping up and making changes.
> All changes are for the better I guess
>
> 73 MM0LID
> Scott Mcleman
>
> From: Peter Laws
> Sent: 24 November 2016 18:17
> To: RTTY at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] BARTG rule changes
>
> The whining has commenced!  I will send my occasional reminder that in
> no jurisdiction with which I am familiar (certainly not under the US
> FCC, at least until its abolishment) are radioamateurs *required* to
> participate in BARTG or any other contests.  IOW, if you don't like
> the rules, don't play!  It's simple!
>
> I thought the changes were fine.  The only thing I'd recommend adding
> would be to remind operators operating remote stations that their
> entry (for the contest itself or for any other awards) is based on the
> location of the TRANSMITTER and not the OPERATOR.  This seems to be a
> point of confusion for many, though I'm at a loss as to why.  Other
> than that, it looks good.
>
>
>
> BARTG Friend #8385
>
>