[VHFcontesting] Proposed VHf Rules Changes

[kevin kaufhold]

The following is an outline summary of my comments
that I have now e-mailed to the committee. 

In General: 

First, the proposals will not change the technological
and regulatory reasons that have produced major ups
and downs in log entries over the years.  The dramatic
fluctuations in log entries will continue regardless
of what happens with the rules. 

Second, unintended but adverse side effects will
certainly arise by the proposals.  Even though the
committee wants to increase participation, the
proposals may very well decrease activity levels,
especially with the rovers and microwaves.  

Third, the proposals may be motivated more by what
some people believe is wrong with the current rules
than by a concern over log entry reduction.  Witness
the rover proposals. Would any of these proposed rover
changes really accelerate log entries and contest
activity on a nation-wide basis? 

Fourth, the proposals are anti-microwave in tone and
go way too far towards limiting microwave activity. 
The general policy should be to encourage the micros,
not to stamp them out of existence in VHF contests. 

Fifth, tinkering around with the rules will not
accomplish much without core groups of a critical mass
to support VHF / UHF activity.  Instead, the League
should pro-actively develop individual geographical
areas in a SMSA hit-list type of format. Resources
should be used for the intense development of more VHF
clubs, nets, beacons, etc, in selected areas of the
country that could support more VHF activity.    

At a preliminary level then, there should be a general
preference for NOT changing most of the rules.  The
need has not been shown, and no general agreement and
consensus has been developed yet inside the VHF
community. Indeed, when viewed in their entirety, the
proposals amount to an over-reaction to the rovers and
to the mathematics of microwave point and multiplier
scoring.  

As to Specific Proposals:

On rovers, no on reverting back to the 1991 rules.  We
have debated this several times before in the early to
mid 1990’s, with resulting pandemonium and no
consensus on each occasion. Leave well enough alone -
the rovers have accepted the circa 1995 rover scoring
revisions, as there is currently lots of rover
activity.  No on prohibiting rovers towards the club
aggregate score.  That would only reduce rover
activity. Prohibitions on grid circling by 2 or more
rovers and on captive roving are more acceptable in
theory, but many more details and definitions need to
be worked out prior to implementation.

On QSO Point changes, it is an interesting idea, but
this is such a radical proposal that would so
fundamentally shift the nature of VHF contesting, that
it needs much more time for study and debate.  i am
not in favor of immediate changes here. I am
particularly concerned with the 1 point per rover
contact proposal. 

The SO Limited is also an interesting proposal, but it
will not necessarily bring new people into VHF
contesting.  It also will further fragment an already
disjointed SO grouping of classes. Arguably, we have
too many categories as it is.  Several other concerns
exist as to the details, as well - such as no 222!
Unbelievable! I simply shudder at the prospect of the
League deliberately cutting out 222 from a category
limited to the other three VHF bands.  What becomes of
222 then? With proposals like these, we may yet lose
the remaining 3 MHZ of bandwidth that we managed to
hold in 1992. Why not just allow 4 bands of activity,
as with the multi-limited, and then let the ops
themselves pick the bands to use?  I am also worried
that the SO limited will be a SO VHF, while the
current SOLP will devolve into a class for those SO's
running the microwaves. Is this what the committee
really wants to do?  The whole idea needs to be
heavily thought through and revised prior to
implementation.  Not in favor of adoption until we
sort through the issues some more. 

No on a 6 Hour QRP hilltop.  It is simply not
necessary.  People can now run the SO Port, which is
very similar in nature. Where do the QRP stations go
now - to hilltops! And, many QRP's currently will only
run 6 or so hours while still winning section and
division awards. Why do we need a new category when
we already have one for the QRP crowd? If "hill
topping" is to be encouraged more, there can be some
relaxation to the restrictions of the current QRP
category (such as allowing commercial power). The
multiplicity of categories between two versions of QRP
is simply unnecessary.  

An emphatic no to limiting the June VHF to 6-1296. 
Coupled with the QSO point rule and the SO limited,
this rules change is way too anti-microwave in nature.
We should not fundamentally alter such a great and
long-standing contest, all out of concern over
microwaves.  If people want to run VHF only contests
in the summer, they can already do so by way of the CQ
WW VHF, the SMIRK event, and the 6 Meter Sprint at the
end of May. Where did we cast aside the slogan of
"lose it or use it?"  If the concern is over the
microwaves distorting the overall scoring, then let's
continue to work on that, not totally revamp a
wonderful contest that has been with us since 1948. 
 
OK on dropping the UHF.  Sadly, it never has developed
mass acceptance.

OK on changing the 10 GHZ. Changes are especially
needed if the UHF is to be dropped. I would rather
view the change as being a merged UHF / 10 GHZ
microwave contest instead of simply the elimination
of the UHF. In this regard, a joint UHF / 10 GHZ has
the possibility of becoming the premier UHF and above
event. Possibly, extend the bands down to what is
available in the UHF contest, so as to really be a
joint UHF / 10 GHZ event. 

On the EME, need to have acceptance with the
moon-bouncers prior to implementation. 

On the 150 watts limitation of SOLP’s 4 VHF bands, I
suggest to raise the limit to 200 watts (many bricks
run 170 watts on 2 meters, currently). 

OK on the DX to DX credit.  Also, please consider a
new proposal being circulated by Jon Jones:  DX
awards.  

OK on prohibiting multi ops from running their own ops
on 2.3 and above.  This has resulted in artificial
point production, benefiting only the sponsoring
multi.  

OK on promoting activity hours during the contests. 

OK on plaques for January and September.

OK on award changes, although exact details need to be
worked out prior to implementation.  


Kevin Kaufhold
W9GKA


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools