[UK-CONTEST] NFD Notifications

[Peter Bowyer]

Mike

I don't know how familiar you are with the workings of the RSGB Contest
Committees and the strange timetables they have to work to - the annual
contesting guide is published in (circa) November RadCom, and the deadline
for copy is several months prior. So any rule change for the (eg) 2003
contests, whether it's a January or December event, needs to be discussed in
Committee in mid-2002, so the rules can be written up and submitted to
RadCom, which is a minimum of 6 months before the event it refers to, and a
maximum of 18 months.

Changing written rules on the fly is therefore an impossible task. One is
often in the position of discussing the rules for next year's run of a
particular contest before this year's event has happened - much as you want
to quickly take into account the feedback from entrants, you can't.

So if the committees want to react to prevailing conditions and take into
account new circumstances, there's no choice but to act flexibly. There's no
benefit to the contest community in blindly applying unnecessary and
out-dated rules - so long as note is taken for the next round of
rule-setting. If Dave's flexibility causes even just one or two extra groups
to put in a last-minute registration for NFD, where's the harm?
Theoretically the groups who submitted before the deadline could get
aggrieved because a couple slid under the wire, but if it means an
increasing, rather than decreasing, level of participation and entry, and a
club or group who are favourably disposed towards entering NFD in the
future, then it's got to be the right policy.

Peter G4MJS (VHFCC)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Farmer" <G3VAO at hortonbrook.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "G3SXW" <g3sxw at compuserve.com>; "UK-Contest" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] NFD Notifications


> Roger you disappoint me. There is nothing anonymous about my e-mails (have
a
> look at my e-mail address). I do not rubbish every thing on the reflector.
I
> do not take always take a negative stance.
>
> It is not JUST an NFD problem.
>
> My "hang up" is simple. I have a fundamental belief that rule writes have
a
> reason to write their rules. If there is a problem then the rule writes
> should change the rules and not "bend" then in a manner which may favour
> some operators.   If a rule needs bending then surely its a bad rule and
> should either be deleted or changed.
>
>