[UK-CONTEST] re RBN, Skimmer and NFD

[Steve Knowles]

Ken

I do know that Quin replied fully to Derek's mail at 1430 today, detailing the position of the Contests Committee, and that you 
were copied in (as was I) - I'm a bit surprised that you haven't included the reply in your post as well, in the interests of fairness.

It is not for me to tread on Quin's toes, so I will refer only to point 2 below.

There have been no changes to the rules. As the result of queries raised with the Contests Committee, the interpretation of the rules as currently 
written has been cast into doubt. With no time in which to consolidate the rules the adjudicator decided, quite correctly, to advise all participating 
groups of the 'loophole' and give them, at least, the opportunity not to be left out. This information was disseminated NOT via the UK-Contesting 
reflector (which would have been totally inappropriate for the reasons you stated), but by email directly to all the groups which had registered for 
NFD.

Steve Knowles, G3UFY
Secretary, RSGB Contests Committee


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Eastty" <ken.g3lvp at btinternet.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:20 PM
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Fwd: Re: NFD


> The following objection has been sent to the HF CC via Quin:
>
> The members of the G5BK/P NFD team, wish to register a formal and strong
> objection to the decision decision to permit the use of RBN and skimmers
> in the restricted section of HF NFD for the following reasons:
>
> 1. The very short notice given for, as we see it, the change to the
> rules. This gives groups not already prepared to use such technology
> (and we believe there will be many) very little time to benefit from the
> change. This, we argue, is unfair.
>
> 2. The means by which the change was promulgated. We believe that not
> all groups monitor the contest reflector, so there will be some who will
> not have heard about the change. Again, unfair.
>
> 3. The change does not fit with the "no second (stand-alone)
> receiver" rule in the Restricted Section. If we can now use RBN and
> skimmer, why not a second receiver for the latter provides, in general
> terms, much the same function as the former. A totally inconsistent
> decision, we argue.
>
> Just to make it clear, we are not against change. For instance, we
> would welcome the ability to be able to have a second receiver available
> so that we could involve more club members in the event, and especially
> so that we could introduce more club members to the attractions of the
> event. Neither are we against the changes that new technology bring. But
> we do strongly believe that such changes must be introduced in a
> considered, timely, consistent manner and promulgated well ahead of the
> event so that groups can properly benefit from the changes.
>
> 73,
> Derek G3NKS
> Chairman
> Cheltenham Amateur Radio Association
>
> Forwarded by G3LVP
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest