[UK-CONTEST] NFD Notifications

[Mike Farmer]

Hmmm

Peter makes some very good points here which I totally except. . . However .
.why is the notification process being bent for the second year as was
stated earlier.

My point is the rule was found unsatisfactory 2 years ago and it appears no
action has been taken.

73 de Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Bowyer" <peter at unica.co.uk>
To: "UK-Contest" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] NFD Notifications


> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>