FW: [VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF+ contest proposals: input invited

[Hoffman, Mark]

To the MSC VHF-UHF Contest and Awards Subcommittee:

I really don't think our input will change anything - but I should speak
before it all becomes official. I say this, as the June 2004 Contest Rules
are not yet posted, yet a contest which occurs 2 weeks later ARE available.
That tells me that these proposals aren't just "proposals".  Doesn't it
require a couple months advance time to put articles into QST? Well, the
timing is just perfect. Something tells me March 7th is nearing the May QST
publication deadline. If I'm dead wrong, then please correct me. I'm being
cynical, I know. 

I just remember the debate over the removal of the Contest Scores from the
pages of QST. We had to file our concerns / consent within a certain period
of time. From what I gathered, the vast majority of respondants were dead
set against doing so (I don't know this for sure) and some even offered the
idea of paying more in dues if the problem was $$ shortfalls. I had a long
discussion with my Section Manager about this. Sent emails about this. Yet,
we find the content out of QST except the top-10 boxes. That's business,
folks. In most organizations, tough decisions are made in advance. Then they
are presented to the folks they affect, then done. That's change management.
Give JUST enough time to make them think their comments are worthwhile
before doing it anyway. 

Knowing how some members of the committee feel that the salvation of VHF+
Contesting is an influx from HF Contesters, or QRPers (who are the only
builders in the hobby these days), and 1000's of them at that - it seems
pretty apparent to me that we're fighting some kind of "special-interest
group" influence here. That a "typical"  VHFer can't manage to run rates
during an HF contest isn't a good reason to assume that we need to be
"saved". This "HFer vs VHFer" stuff has GOT to stop. 

SO - lest I get TOO far off field in my rant, here goes:

>Major recommendations
>1) Changes in the rover rules 
>2) QSO point changes 
>3) June VHF QSO Party 50-1296 only
>4) New categories in Jan/Jun/Sept
>5) Expanded Microwave contest based on 10 GHz Cumulative - UHF contest
dropped.

1) Have no big comments about the Rover Rules, as I'm not a rover. If you
wanna go out, drive in circles and whack some stupid-huge scores together,
go nuts. Use whatever points schemes you like. I don't compete against you,
and you don't compete against me. Just don't forget that working other
stations (including home/fixed/portable) is a good idea, and is often lots
of fun. Wasn't that the entire reason in the first place?

2) Why change point structures? If the focus of these proposals is to
encourage more activity - then tell me why 1 point per rover is ANY form of
encouragement? Gee, I can drive 1000 miles in a weekend, giving out one
point (and mults) per QSO, when if I just stayed home - and worked lots of
DX - at 3 points? Man, I'd be stupid. It kills roving. 
As for making the most distant QSOs 3 points - you have to remember a couple
things. 903 or 1296 aren't like 144MHz. It's NOT an easy accomplishment to
work EN71 from FN12. When it happens, it should be worth MORE. Plain and
simple. Same goes with 2304 and up. Limiting all QSOs to 2-3 points really
drives a stake into the heart of getting more stations above 903. Or maybe
that's the entire point. 

3) Limiting the June VHF Contest to 6 bands is advantageous to those groups
/ individuals who don't feel it necessary to invest time and effort into
putting a full-bore M/M effort together. It's a silly proposal, a selfish
one at best - which needs to be ignored. 

4) New categories are fun. And they work. I have to admit, I do agree with
this one. How about making a 6-band M/M category? That way, you don't need
to limit the number of bands that a station can run. Or just expand Limited
Multiop to INCLUDE 903 and 1296! That would expand the numbers of stations
on 903 and 1296, without seriously jeopardizing those that DO wish to make a
full-blown effort. Doing this eliminates the need for #3. I'd prefer to see
rules changes by INCLUSION rather than EXCLUSION. But that's just me.

5) I've got a better idea. Let's drop the ARRL DX CW contest, and lump 80,
40 and 10 meters CW into the ARRL DX SSB contest. That would be a fair
compromise, wouldn't you say? I mean, with CW going the way of the dinosaur,
you'd not expect to have any chance for improvement - would you?

Dropping a contest is not the way to justify expanding another. The 10GHz+
Contest has its own life. The UHF Contest has it's own life. Mashing both
together to try and artificially inseminate more activity isn't the best
route. If it's a function of numbers of logs versus ARRL support - then I
suppose you have no choice but to do your best. Leave the 10GHz+ Contest
alone, as it IS successful. If you feel it necessary to drop August, I
suppose I can understand. Maybe CQ would pick it up as a sponsored event,
and hopefully do it justice. I'd sure spend my $40/yr subscription fees
there if that were the case. 


Bottom line, this is the most politically-laden, selfish, arrogant piece of
work that I've seen come from the ARRL to date. My membership to the ARRL
has always depended on it providing content that serve my needs. I'm
primarially a VHFer - but can hold down an 80+/hr rate on 80m CW if asked. I
see effort to improve coverage in QST. I see a new column covering the
Microwaves. I'm encouraged by the improvement in log submissions for 10GHz+
Contests. Those are net positives. These proposals are COMPLETELY
counter-intuitive to those goals. Contests are events that (in my opinion)
are used to help an individual determine station and personal performance.
If I make an improvement, what better forum to test that equipment than in a
competition, where that gear (and myself) are exercised continuously. By
proposing to limit my operating choices, restricting my frequencies of
operation, or eliminating an event altogether - I'm completely baffled by
these bipolar, contradictory choices, and the message they are sending. I
don't support them at all

I just don't think anything I'm saying here will alter its outcome. I HOPE
I'm wrong, and that I'm being a paranoid moron. I guess we all just need to
wait and see just who's the fool....

Mark Hoffman, K2AXX
50MHz - 10GHz (with 24GHz, 474tHz soon)
FN12cs, Geneseo NY. 
Single-Op High Power 
80m Band Captain, W2FU Multiop