[VHFcontesting] Contesting Philosophy

[Marshall Williams]

Hello to everyone in the VHF / UHF community.  The concept presented 
below has been "rattling around in my mind" for a very long time now.  I 
have been watching the various reflectors for some time, not posting 
much, but reading everything.  Finally, I decided that I needed to just 
sit down, write this up, and try to wordsmith it into a decent 
presentation.  Partly, I was prompted to do this by our new Division 
Director, Dr. David Woolweaver, K5RAV.  Partly, by the firm belief that 
the ARRL's VHF rules are "broken".   Maybe I just needed to get this off 
my chest......

I sent this to 15 top VHF operators.  I received 5 replies along the 
lines, "I am 100% behind you on this!".  I recevied a phone call from 
one of the East Coast's premier VHF guys who was negative.  He and I 
have been discussing this for several years, so I knew what his position 
was and he knew mine.  Interestingly, he was a top flight HF guy before 
he became interested in VHF activity.  Still, I was very interested in 
his comments. 

CONTESTING PHILOSOPHY:

I have been seriously contesting in the VHF/UHF world since June 2004.  
Hence, there are surely guys with a LOT more VHF+ contesting experience 
than I.  However, I have been a VHFer since the late 60's when I became 
really hooked on Meteor Scatter(MS).  My Elmer there was none other than 
Dick, K0MQS, the holder of 2M WAS #1.  Dick explained the very strict 
definition of what constituted a VHF contact and that all serious VHF 
operators were careful to abide by this convention.  The definition of 
what constitutes a VHF contact was given to us by Ed Tilton and has been 
in use for 50+ years.  Every VHF operator that I have ever known, knows 
this "convention" and abides by it.  I shall call it "Tilton's Rule". 

For those that may not know, the definition of a valid VHF contact 
requires that BOTH stations receive BOTH calls, some piece of 
information(usually a signal report or grid), and confirmation that the 
information was received(i.e. a ROGER).  Once a contact attempt begins, 
communication via ANY other means is prohibited.  Doing so, invalidates 
the contact and you must start again from the beginning. 

Over the years, I have spent a lot of time and effort station building 
and operating in the hopes of working some good DX on the VHF/UHF 
bands.  Everyone that I know likes to work "that rare one" on long range 
tropo, MS, AU, or EME.  As long as the strict definition for a VHF 
contact was observed, the contact is counted for WAS, DXCC, VUCC, and 
whatever else is lying around.

Recently, I have come to understand that there are two different ideas 
of what contesting should be about.  I will call these two philosophies 
the HF Philosophy and the VHF Philosophy.  I am not sure that I like 
these two names, but I cannot think of anything better.  While the names 
indicate the heritage of the ideas, it is clear that there will be some 
people that don't fall in either camp.  However, I have observed that 
operators who were HF ops for many years and then came over to VHF, tend 
to believe in the HF Philosophy.  Ops that started out in the VHF world 
and VHF contesting, tend to believe in the VHF Philosophy.  I suspect 
that this is basically true through out the country.....but maybe not.

Operators who believe in the HF Philosophy believe that ALL of 
contesting is "Did you find that rare one in Africa??".  Their emphasis 
is on FINDING stations rather than WORKING stations.  Apparently, in the 
HF world, it is just assumed that if you find one, you will work him.  
There are rules, upon rules, upon rules that govern HOW you are allowed 
to find a station to work.

Operators who believe in what I call the VHF Philosophy believe that 
"You can either work a station or you can't."  The emphasis here is on 
WORKING stations rather than FINDING them.  In other words, VHF 
contesting should be about MAKING the CONTACTS.  In the VHF world, you 
must have precise control of antenna pointing(both directions), 
frequency, mode, sequencing, and the time of the attempt to make a 
single contact.  It often happens in the VHF world, that even though you 
know exactly the call of a station and exactly where he/she is located, 
you cannot work that station on a given band.

When I first began VHF contesting, I kept running into what I will call 
the "Thou Shalt Not" rules in the ARRL contests.  I could not understand 
what those rules were about--why they were in there--what purpose did 
they serve?  All these rules seemed to do was to limit the number of 
contacts that you could make--to artifically lower your score.  To those 
of us that belive contesting should be about making the contacts, those 
rules make no sense.  I have found that most of those rules were "pushed 
up" into the VHF world from the HF world.  These rules have an HF 
heritage.  I have talked with several well-known old-time VHFers and 
they agree with me on this point.

In contrast to the ARRL's horde of "Thou Shalt Not" rules, the CQ WW VHF 
contest has practically no such rules.  You may call a station on the 
phone, send him an email, look at a propagation reflector, whatever--but 
you still have to actually WORK the guy.  Making contacts in a contest, 
what a novel approach!  There is a reason why the CQ WW VHF contest has 
become the "Fourth Major".  The lack of artificial restrictions is 
certainly an important part of this contest's "charm".

It may be that all this revolves around what the HF ops call 
"Assistance".  I really don't like this word, because it does not 
describe what is going on.  Unfortunately, the word has become a 
multi-valued word.  When some ops use the word assistance, they mean 
help in setting up a schedule during the contest period.  When others 
use the word, they mean that someone is using a telephone during the 
middle of a contact attempt saying, "OK, I am sending O's now, can you 
hear my O's??"  Others use assistance to mean setting up a schedule 
before the contest even starts.  There may be other uses too.

Apparently, in the HF world, "assistance" vs "no assistance" is a really 
big deal.  Even though I have been in the VHF world for 40+ years, I had 
never heard the term "assistance" until last year.  This is why the 
"assistance" vs "no assistance" thing just does not make any sense to me 
at all.

Every real VHF op knows that you cannot use "assistance" during a 
contact attempt to confirm parts of  the contact.  "Everyone knows" that 
this invalidates the contact attempt.  I have never met a real VHF op 
that engaged in this sort of thing.  This use of the word assistance is 
just a non-starter.

Another use of the "assistance" word is to regulate the making of 
schedules.  The ARRL rules prohibit making a schedule during the 
contest(using non-Amateur means).  Since the ARRL cannot regulate 
conduct before the contest begins, an operator is free to make as many 
schedules as he/she wishes before the contest starts.  I have learned 
that in the HF world, you are a "terrorist with a box cutter on the 
plane" if you make schedules before a contest.

However, it is extremely common practice in the VHF world to make 
schedules before a contest--especially on digital MS or EME.  I don't 
understand how there is any significant difference between setting up a 
schedule before the contest period begins or after.  You still have to 
actually WORK the guy.  If you can/do work the other station, the 
contact should count, just as it does in every other facet of the VHF 
world.  If you can't work the other station, you can make all the 
schedules that you want, but you will just be wasting your contest 
time.  Consider this scenario:  it is perfectly legal for Amateurs to 
set up a regional 40M or 75M net during the contest and use these nets 
to make/coordinate schedules(such as for digital MS).  But if one were 
to do this via Ping Jockey, then you are a child molester with bad 
breath and a bad haircut as far as the ARRL is concerned.  The 
distinction is meaningless and silly--you can either work the other guy 
or you cannot.  How or when you make a schedule is not 
relevant.....contacts are what count.  However, the strict definition of 
a VHF contact MUST be observed.

Practically everyone believes that the "Rules for VHF Contesting" are 
broken.  Various well meaning and thoughtful people are making detailed 
proposals concerning how to fix this bit of minutia or that bit.  I 
believe that if we don't get the "First Principles" correct, there will 
never be any hope of "fixing" the ARRL's VHF contest rules.

Here is what I and many others in our area believe are the FIRST PRINCIPLES:

1.  The strict definition of what constitutes a VHF contact must be 
observed.  It is our duty as VHF operators and Elmers to teach this and 
via word and deed to respect it.

2.  VHF contesting should be about "making the contacts"....making as 
many contacts as possible, on as many different bands as possible, to as 
many different VHF stations as possible, for as long a distance as 
possible.

3.  Hence, ALL VHF should be "Assisted"(in the ARRL's use of the word).  
Stations may make schedules at any time via any means--however, the 
strict definition of what makes a VHF contact must be carefully 
observed.  I realize that the hidebound HF ops at HQ are going to have 
heart fribrillations over this idea--because their experience and 
training are rooted in the HF world and the HF Philosophy.  However, 
what is right for the HF contests is not necessarily right for VHF 
contests.  A possible compromise is that ALL VHF contests provide 
"Assisted Classes" of operation.

Rational discussion and / or ideas are welcomed, preferably off the 
reflector.  I have tried hard to wordsmith this discussion so that it 
was not inflamatory or insulting to anyone.  If someone can show me how 
to better present these ideas, I welcome their helpful criticism.

Please don't send me flames telling me that:
1)The rules are the rules and we should just obey them.  Before Little 
Rock, black Americans were forced into substandard schools, required to 
use "Black Only" drinking fountains and restrooms, and other such 
indignities, because that was "The Law".  Of course it was all wrong and 
the laws were eventually overturned.
2)I am an ARRL hater and just want to see the ARRL destroyed.  I don't 
hate the ARRL at all.  I am a member of the ARRL and have been for 
several years.  Like 20% of the ham population, I get my copy of QST in 
the mailbox every month.

If you agree with me on this, please stand up and start working towards 
its acceptance.  If you do not, please try to explain WHY this is the 
wrong concept.  "This is the way the HFers do it and so it must be 
right" and "We have always done things this way, don't rock the boat" 
are not rational reasons or explanations. 

Finally, HF ops tend to believe that HF contesting and VHF contesting 
are the same.  Of course, most have never operated VHF, but they remain 
very strong in their beliefs.  Most VHF ops tend to believe that HF and 
VHF contesting ARE significantly different and hence should / could have 
different concepts and rules.  Again, I will say that the correct rules 
for HF contesting and VHF contesting do not necessarily have to be the 
same. 

After absorbing the constructive criticism of those interested in this 
idea(and I expect a lot of flames too), I will try to write up a 
proposal for the VUCC to consider. 
73 to all and good luck on the long haul VHF / UHF contacts.....Marshall 
K5QE

P.S.  Abusive flames and other such stuff --------> bit bucket