[VHFcontesting] Proposed VHF Rule Changes

Bill Seabreeze w3iy at adelphia.net
Mon Feb 23 19:16:28 EST 2004

My 3 cents...de W3IY/R

I think it's great that some people want to make VHF contests
better, and encourage more activity and participation.  I think 
the best way to do this is for QST to promote more exposure
of VHF activity and operating to the general readership, and 
for all of us to provide more PR and get the word out that
VHF & above is really lots of fun and educational.  We need
more articles and "how-to" information to be made available
to prospective new-comers.  We need articles on affordable
antennas and transverters.  We need guys to show new hams
that VHF doesn't have to be so expensive.  We need, above all,
more positive attitudes, and operators who like to make QSOs,
and not just win-win-win, and whine-whine-whine.  Just because
some guys have worked all the grids, and won all the awards,
they need to realize that they are still needed to provide activity,
and show others how to have fun on the bands.  We need to 
reach out and help to give others the oppurtunity to work us, and 
share the enjoyment of this great aspect of amateur radio.

Regarding the proposed rule changes...
It really ain't that broke, so let's not try to fix it so much.

I would like to see something to end grid circling and captive
roving, because I think these activities are self-serving, and 
definitely do not send a positive message to others.  Any
rover activity which does not contribute to the general activity
and fun in a contest for all stations within range is just plain
bad.  Perhaps something like limiting rovers working rovers to
25% of the total QSOs would work.  Or maybe requiring a
minimum distance of 10 miles for rover-to-rover QSOs.
Similiarly, limiting rovers working only one other station 
(multi-op) could be cured by requiring rovers to show that 
no more than 25% of their QSOs are with only one station
would work.  This one would probably require that the suspect
rover turn in his log, or else risk having his QSOs disqualified.

My other recommendations are less verbose...
1.  Don't limit the June VHF contest to only the low bands...BAD
IDEA all the way around...This is really counter-productive.  If
there is concern about the band-limited guys...then give out
more awards for the top low band participants.  This would
give them something to shoot for, even if they only have 1 band.

2.  Leave the UHF contest in place.  It's still loads of fun, and
activity isn't all that bad.  It's really a fun contest for the uwavers.

3.  Don't reduce the points for rover QSOs...this is a great way
to kill off even more rovers.

4.  Distance scoring...not a bad idea, but not really all that 
necessary.  We all like to work DX anyways, and still get
a big thrill out of it, points or no points.

5.  Adding 2.3GHz & up to the 10G & up contest...I'm not
qualified to comment, because I'm usually too burned out from
the previous weekend VHF contests to get involved.  I think
it would be well received, and it might even get my tired butt
out on the road a little.  It would be nice to space these contests
out a little more from the existing ones.

Thanks for being open-minded, and trying to make things
better.  We really appreciate it.  But please remember, the
existing rules aren't that bad, and we've been having a ball for
lots of years now, the way things are.

GL & best 73,
Bill W3IY/R

More information about the VHFcontesting mailing list