[VHFcontesting] My Proposal to the VUAC

[Kenneth E. Harker]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:25:51AM -0400, Ron Hooper wrote:
> Kenneth
> 
> Lets completely forget Marshall's proposal for a minute. Since we
> have established that you are very experienced on HF assisted operation, do
> you agree the same HF assisted category could be applied to VHF contest? If
> not, what changes would you make to the assisted VHF contest category so it
> would apply?

There are already categories in the ARRL VHF contests that can use assistance
in the traditional sense of the term - the two multi-operator categories.
There are HF contests without single-op assisted categories (the ARRL 10 Meter 
Contest and the IARU HF World Championships, for example).  In those contests,
if a single-op decides to watch packet spots, they are only eligible to enter
the multi-operator category.  The exact same thing can be done in the ARRL VHF
contests now.  If you operate as a single-op, but make a passive use of the
spotting network, you can enter as M/L or M/U.

Should there be a true "single-operator assisted" category for the ARRL VHF
contests the way there is for some (but not all) major HF contests?  I guess 
my concern would be that the further fractioning of the single-operator 
category would result in so many categories for so few participants that it 
makes the competition less interesting.  The fact that there are very popular
HF contests that do not have single-op assisted categories also suggests to me
that they are not necessary for the health of a contest.

But this particular argument began, not with a discussion of the passive use 
of spotting networks on VHF, but Marshall's use of the term "assistance" 
to refer to the active use of non-radio networks to make QSOs, something that
I hope the VUAC rejects for all participants in VHF radio contests.

 
> Ron
> 
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Kenneth E. Harker
> <kenharker at kenharker.com>wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 02:25:25PM -0400, Ron Hooper wrote:
> > > Kennith
> > >
> > > I think Marshall's proposal was for adding an assisted category not
> > > eliminating the categories we have now.
> > > >From the way your comments read, it appears you believe EVERYONE will
> > start
> > > operating as an assisted station. Can you clarify if I understood this
> > > correctly?
> >
> > I think Marshall's concept of "assistance" is at odds with how that term is
> > normally used in HF contesting.  In HF contesting, assistance has
> > traditional
> > referred to the passive use of a spotting network.  What Marshall is
> > suggesting goes way, way beyond that, and I think he's using the term
> > "assistance" because he knows that term is widely used to describe an
> > accepted operaitng practice in HF.  If he calls it "assisted", it must not
> > be that bad, right?
> >
> > However, what he is arguing for is the ability to do things that are
> > currently prohibited for all entrants for all major HF (and VHF) contests.
> > Those changes would radically change how the top, competitive stations
> > operate the contest, and would have a serious negative impact on the
> > contest.
> >
> > > You mentioned that you have operated at HF multi-op stations. Is that
> > where
> > > you operated assisted to have formed the basis for your comments?
> >
> > I have operated in a lot of different categories in a lot of different
> > contests:  http://www.wm5r.org/contest/
> >
> > --
> > Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> > kenharker at kenharker.com
> > http://www.kenharker.com/
> >
> >

-- 
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker at kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/