Topband: Rules that should be changed was: Re: How does this make any sense?

[Pete Smith N4ZR]

But Joe, we've all known for years that you didn't like the way the 
Skimmer debate came out.  That doesn't mean that the CAC under WC1M's 
leadership didn't do an exemplary job of thinking through the 
implications and coming up with solid, serviceable language for use in 
contest rules.  I'm not suggesting that the Board and HQ staff weren't 
involved, but Dick and his colleagues did a fine job under (ahem) 
somewhat overheated circumstances.

If we want to talk about rules that should be changed, how about the 
absurd lumping of assisted stations with multi-singles in the ARRL 10M 
and 160M contests.  I recently received a certificate proclaiming me 
"Division Winner" in the 2011 ARRL 160 contest, in the Low Power 
Multi-Single class.  For what? 20,000 points and maybe 3 hours' 
operating. I'm sure not going to put that one up on my wall.

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.

On 12/1/2012 9:36 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> > Respectfully, I don't think this is anywhere close to right.
>
> I disagree with you ... the Advisory Committees have no independent
> advisory role and have generally not been permitted to gather and
> evaluate input on topics other than the narrow issues assigned by
> the staff.  They have become an "echo chamber" for the preconceived
> positions of the staff and insiders.
>
>> For example, the CAC did an exemplary job of developing a League
>> position on where Skimmer techn0ology fit in its contests.
>
> A prime example of an Advisory Committee rubber stamping the position
> of the staff and insiders.  Relegating skimmers entirely within one's
> own station (I'm not talking about remote receiver skimmers or RBN) to
> an "assisted" class was preordained.  It ignores the historical embrace
> of technological innovation and is the first/only case that technology
> (software or hardware that does not use input from a person other than
> the station operator) has been singled out for special treatment.
>
> 73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 12/1/2012 9:10 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
>> Respectfully, I don't think this is anywhere close to right.  For
>> example, the CAC did an exemplary job of developing a League position on
>> where Skimmer techn0ology fit in its contests.  A lot depends on the CAC
>> chairman at any given time, and on getting the ARRL Board to give the
>> CAC the right tasks to do.
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>> http://reversebeacon.net,
>> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
>> For spots, please go to your favorite
>> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
>>
>> On 12/1/2012 8:09 AM, Greg Chartrand wrote:
>>> It doesn't make any sense, and its not intended to.
>>> I've given up with the league. My experience has been that the
>>> "advisory" boards have virtually no influence on decisions that are
>>> made about contests or anything for that matter. That's why I stopped
>>> contributing to this "private club".
>>>
>>> -----------------------
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comments Ron.  For some reason I just can't think of how
>>> in a 160 meter international contest that if you work KH6 you get no
>>> additional  multiplier for working Guam, Wake Island, Swains, American
>>> Samoa, Midway, Johnson, Kingman Reef, Kure Island!  These are all
>>> separate entities over at the so call ARRL DXCC Desk but apparently not
>>> at the "Contest Desk".
>>>
>>> How does this make any sense?
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Topband reflector - topband at contesting.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Topband reflector - topband at contesting.com
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband reflector - topband at contesting.com
>