[UK-CONTEST] the whole purpose of the RSGB (contest) programme ??

[Peter Burden]

I must admit that when I read phrases like "top-down strategic vision", I
start wondering whether we're taking ourselves too seriously. It is worth
reflecting that a large majority of licensed amateurs have no interest in
contests whatsoever and are quite happy with other aspects of the hobby.
Having said that both John and Peter have some good points. Reflecting on
where we are and some 40 years of operating of various sorts, here's a
rather unstructured collection of thoughts.

Contests should be fun - and I've often enough come away saying "never
again, not until the next time".

Contests that do not require a massive commitment of time and resources for
satisfying participation should be developed. Debate separate "entry-level"
contests vs multiple sections of existing contests.

More transparency and, more importantly, speed in the publication of
results. You don't have to wait months/years for the result of a football
match.

By all means try and keep the rules simple - but recognise that keeping
things simple is difficult, so develop open discussion and debate on rule
changes and be biassed in favour of not changing rules.

Contest development should be bottom-up rather than top-down - i.e. do what
the customer wants rather than what management wants.

Recognise that the results are a valuable resource and publish or make
available on-line the full set of submitted logs so those interested can
mine them for whatever information can be deduced. This could provide
welcome input from the contest fraternity to the "scientific" side of the
hobby.

[Tongue in cheek - slightly]. Divide final points by the cost of the
equipment! The resultant number would be a useful "broad" measure of
operator all round skill. An annual trophy for the operator that got the
mostest from the leastest.


For an example of a part of the contest programme that seems to have got
most things right have a look at the participation in the UK VHF/UHF
activity contests. Also reflect that there seem to be only a tiny handful
of non-RSGB organised contests based in the UK, so CC must be getting quite
a lot right.

73 Peter Burden, G3UBX



On 31 August 2012 23:22, Peter Hobbs <peter at tilgate.co.uk> wrote:

> I'm not sure a top-down approach to RSGB contest strategy is the ideal
> one, bearing in mind that, with the current structure (i.e. a company
> rather than a society or charity) Council is inevitably going to be
> motivated very much by the bottom line / maximising membership of the
> Society.  That said, we are fortunate in having some highly experienced
> contesters on Council at this particular juncture.  To date, I believe the
> strategy of the Contest Committee has been largely to take note of the
> opinions of those members who are interested in contesting and give them as
> far as possible what they want - OK, often a pretty thankless task, but at
> least one driven by democratic principles.  I wouldn't be happy to see any
> radical change to this approach.
>
> 73, Peter G3LET
>
>
> John Warburton G4IRN wrote:
>
>  Picking up on a comment made by Clive/GM3POI: "the whole purpose of the
>> RSGB programme should be to improve standards".........
>>
>> Having checked the CC web-site, I see NO documented purpose, objectives
>> or strategy of the Contest Committee whatsoever. So, how exactly do
>> decisions about contests and rules get made,
>> without anyone knowing what is trying to be achieved?
>>
>> There will always be arguments (sorry, discussion!) over potential
>> contest rule changes whilst personal opinion and consensus of a vocal
>> minority might be driving the agenda. One of the problems here is that
>> there is no documented 'guiding light' or strategic roadmap for UK
>> Contesting - a set of aspirations and policy that the CC can use as a
>> framework for defining contest types and contest rules. This was
>> highlighted perfectly with the fiasco over the NFD rules earlier this year
>> -- I don't mean the timeliness issue, I mean the fabric of the proposed
>> rule changes that caused so much debate. Until a base-line for decision
>> making is in place, every potential rule-change will provoke differences in
>> opinion.
>>
>> It's simple: policy, the contest portfolio and rules should be based on
>> the strategic values of the society with some specific additions for UK
>> contesting. The Society has recently published a 'shared vision for the
>> future of the Society' (http://rsgbdata.net/**
>> documents/pdf/governance-and-**strategy.pdf<http://rsgbdata.net/documents/pdf/governance-and-strategy.pdf>)
>> - this vision should be used to drive policy and strategy at sub-committee
>> level and hence, the portfolio of contests and their associated rules.
>> Although some of the values therein may well remain aspirational at a UK
>> contest level, I do think the recognition of volunteers by the society (and
>> hence its membership) is important in this context -- the CC members are
>> volunteers and should be respected for their efforts. Any tools given by
>> the society to make their work easier, with transparency, should be
>> encouraged; a top-down strategic vision from the Board Room should be
>> viewed as such a tool.
>>
>>
>> So how will those strategic views be translated into contests and contest
>> rules? I hope the CC is discussing that!Alongside (and aligned with) the
>> RSGB's strategic vision, my opinion is that UK contesting should develop a
>> framework where:
>>
>> a)UK contesting is accessible and encouraged for all-comers (including
>> overseas participants);
>>
>> b)New entrants are particularly encouraged to participate;
>>
>> c)Advances in technology /operating types are encouraged;
>>
>> d)Contesting is fun;
>>
>> e)Contesting is challenging for every participant, if that's what's
>> wanted;
>>
>> f)A set of UK contests are developed that can provide a feed of quality
>> participants to higher levels of European and world contesting (possibly
>> promoting membership of RSGB contest team, GR2HQ, as a goal for aspiring
>> participants).
>>
>>
>> This should translate (depending on your view!) into the development of
>> rules that:
>>
>> ·Are simple;
>>
>> ·Are easy for the 'average station' to pitch an entry and differentiate
>> them from the top-guns;
>>
>> ·Promote self-improvement, contest by contest;
>>
>> ·Give opportunityto operate and compete at the bleeding edge of
>> technology/technique;
>>
>> ·Promote a high quality of operating standard.
>>
>> I'm sure there will be other opinions on the detail of this, however my
>> gist here is that the CC should decide what it wants to achieve with UK
>> contesting -- a set of base principals -- that contests and contest rules
>> are then based on.... It might then be easier to decide if busted QSOs
>> should lead to a penalty, or even if the RSGB 10/15 contest should be
>> replaced by something more appropriate to drive forward the development of
>> the hobby and contest operating in the UK.
>>
>> At the moment I see no clear vision.
>>
>> John G4IRN.
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/uk-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest>
>>
>>  ______________________________**_________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/uk-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest>
>