[UK-CONTEST] Some thoughts re RSGB Contest Committee process

[Chris G3SJJ]

I agree with you Clive that we now need to see and understand the adjudication process.

I don't think sloppy operating is encouraged, probably the reverse. Removal of points and QSOs seems much harsher now under the "tail waging dog 
syndrome."

Chris G3SJJ

On 17/04/2012 23:27, Clive GM3POI wrote:
> Olof, I would also like to see added a list of adjudication criteria
> including examples of where points are lost and if only one half of a QSO
> loses points etc., etc. This material has, I think never been published and
> should be. I am not convinced that this process is fair to all, but instead
> almost encourages sloppy operating.
> 73 Clive GM3POI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Olof Lundberg
> Sent: 17 April 2012 20:33
> To: UK-Contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Some thoughts re RSGB Contest Committee process
>
> Here are some ideas for the committee's consideration as it hopefully takes
> time out for serious soul-searching after the NFD fiasco.
>
> 1)      Sit down and think through what standards you should uphold as a
> committee. One would have thought that this was common sense but you have
> violated common sense and you need an ethics policy. Publish these ethical
> standards - they should be short and sweet. (RSGB might well already have a
> set of generic ethical standards for all its activities.)
>
> 2)      While you are at it also consider the overall objective with RSGB
> contests. I assume that the overarching objectives might include stimulating
> activity, attracting new participants to the hobby in general and contesting
> in particular, enhancing operating standards and station-building skills and
> ensuring that contest rules are modernized as technology and communication
> practises evolve. Publish these objectives - they should also be brief and
> simple. You may wish to have the RSGB Board endorse the objectives.
>
> 3)      Before making any changes to rules but minor fine-tuning announce to
> the community well in advance that you are going to consider some particular
> rules. Invite comments and suggestions. Comments and suggestions you receive
> should be public
>
> 4)      Draft the rules keeping in mind the overall objectives you have set
> out and publish the draft rules again inviting comments. These comments
> should again be public.
>
> 5)      Inviting comments doesn't mean that you will or should satisfy all
> ideas and views. There will always be different opinions. Publish the new
> rules at least a half year before the contest. Don't publish them if they
> are not well considered and if you are not prepared to stand tall and proud
> behind them. All your dealings should be open and transparent. There shall
> be no more back-room deals among a privileged inner circle.
>
> 6)      This is all common sense as far as I am concerned - no management
> consultants, no new jargon or terminology or new process engineering is
> required.
>
> 73 Olof G0CKV
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 9.0.0.888, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.19600)
> http://www.pctools.com/
> =======
>
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 9.0.0.888, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.19600)
> http://www.pctools.com/
> =======
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>