[VHFcontesting] Process Goals [was: Insight from the Great White
w2ev at arrl.net
Wed Feb 25 06:59:26 EST 2004
Jim's post gave me pause. All of the proposals floated to the list seem to
me to fit one of three general groups of thought. I've outlined them below
with the hope that it may help to focus our comments as we file them with
Without regard as to the issue at hand (this applies to all of 'em)...
***** Most absolute treatment: Precisely (this isn't always easy) define the
practice. Outlaw it. There is no ambiguity here. Neither "the
commissioner" nor "the players" have much wiggle room. This can be quite
harsh, as it can result in "throwing the baby out with the washwater" if not
***** A middle-of-the-ground treatment: Define the practice, identify a
metric for observing it and change the rules to dampen (but not eliminate)
the practice's impact. The ambiguity is greater, allowing for the practice
to continue -- abated -- where such a strategy makes sense within the intent
of the event. "The commissioner" has little to do or to rule upon and "the
players" have strategic choices to make. If a loophole is discovered later
the process is repeated.
***** A more ambiguous treatment: Define the practice and state that such a
practice is not within the spirit of the event. Create a "review committee"
with a fair process to determine if/when a violation-of-intent occurs
(metrics are defined and documented as time passes) and give the committee a
fair process with which to mete out penalty/discipline. The ambiguity is
higher yet, while allowing both "the commissioner" and "the players" a
significant amount of interpretive flexibility...with the final authority
resting with "the commissioner". Note: this is a process-intensive solution
that will cause a LOT of delay as people "test the waters" of interpretation.
Anyway...for what it's worth (the electrical cost of a few photons from your
Regards to all,
Ev Tupis, W2EV
More information about the VHFcontesting