[VHFcontesting] VHF+ Contesting Rule Changes

[Ward Silver]

The ad-hoc committee is only charged with recommending new rules etc, 
not adminstration issues.  I think HQ/PS&C/CAC is pretty much aware of 
the need to revamp the way in which the rules are presented but nobody 
has had the bandwidth to do it until the Centennial has run its course.  
Which more or less begins now although I am glad I am not on the "QSL 
Fulfillment Team" :-)

Yes, I think HQ staff and their support team could rebuild the rules 
without changing them (which would the full process be applied) along 
with stating clearly some of the definitions.  The Membership and 
Volunteer Programs Dept Manager (NN1N) makes the call as to what is and 
what isn't considered a rule change.  Personally, I would like to see 
all of the rules that apply to any particular contest be available as a 
"single-click" download.  That would take some editing and a little web 
development but it's not completely out of scope.

In the absence of alternative rulings from HQ about what constitutes the 
boundary between SO and SOU, I would use the following from the HF Rules 
(http://www.arrl.org/general-rules-for-arrl-contests-below-30-mhz):

*2.2.1.*Use of spotting assistance or nets (operating arrangements 
involving other individuals, DX-alerting nets, packet, multi-channel 
decoders such as CW Skimmer, etc) not physically located at the station 
is permitted. (Exception: spotting information obtained from any source 
outside the station boundary via a closed or dedicated communication 
link may not be used.)

Before anybody gets cranked up about HF rules in VHF+ contests, remember 
that the original recommendation was only to create SOU in all ARRL HF 
contests and it was the P&SC which extended it to VHF+ without any 
additional discussion.  So the original recommendation was based on 
2.2.1 as above.  That definition needs to be broadened and made less 
dependent on specific technology but it will suffice for now.

73, Ward N0AX



On 1/2/2015 12:57 PM, James Duffey wrote:
> Ward - I understand about sausage. :^)=
>
> I think that one of the major tasks for the Ad Hoc committee should be to consolidate all of the rules in one place. Included in that I hope would be clear definitions and specific language as to what is allowed and not allowed. I am not sure if they are undertaking that or not; I suspect that I am not alone in my suggestion of this to the committee. Figuring out all the rules one should follow for a VHF contest is a bigger task to the newcomer than it should be and is a bit annoying even to the seasoned veteran. If the rules are not changed, is consolidating them something the HQ staff could do on their own, or would that require direction (and the accompanying delay) from the PSC?
>
> In the meanwhile, without a clear definition of assistance, the new categories could be a wild ride in January. - Duffey KK6MC
>
> On Jan 2, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am not sure I would want to see the actual diagram...something about sausage being made :-)
>>
>> The current rules have grown incrementally over the years with the technology changing far faster than the verbiage.  This is hardly unique to the ARRL but the drawn out, multi-threaded process for rule changes pretty much guarantees the rules will be well behind the needs of the community.  It's not a good idea to have the rules changing at every shift in the wind either.  A re-balancing of the process is sorely needed and has been for a long time.
>>
>> Definitions are quite important and there are few except those sprinkled about here and there.  Perhaps with the Centennial behind us, that would be a good project - to collect, reorganize, and re-state the rules of the world's largest radiosport program in a more understandable format.  There's no reason for three overlapping sets of rules for any contest - it's an artifact of the paper era during which the League's processes were designed.
>>
>>> it seems to me that implementing these rules now will cause confusion with what the Ad-Hoc committee is doing, recommending, or has done.
>> Perhaps, but as I observed in the first post, anything the ad-hoc committee comes up with is at least a year away from implementation, probably longer.  With a more engaged Contest Branch Manager and no competing year-long special events, there will be a higher signal-to-noise ratio for the process, I'm sure.
>>
>> 73, Ward N0AX
>>
>> On 1/2/2015 11:37 AM, James Duffey wrote:
>>> Thanks Ward for the clarification. To me, at least, this points out what a convoluted path ARRL contest rules changes and implementation take from inception to implementation. It is no wonder people get a bit confused during the process, particularly if it is drawn out as how this one has been. We have all seen the High School Civics posters on “How a Bill becomes Law”. It would be nice to see something similar for how a rule becomes changed or implemented in an ARRL contest.
>>>
>>> I still have a big concern about the new rules as there is no definition of assistance in the new rules. I suspect that the restriction in the ARRL General rules:
>>>
>>> 	• 3.14. In contests where spotting nets are permissible, spotting your own station or requesting another station to spot you is not permitted.
>>>
>>> is the only assistance guideline that applies. So all forms of assistance appear to apply except for self spotting.  It is clear that the ARRL General Rules for ARRL Contests Above 50 MHz has not been updated to reflect assistance in the January contest. That will cause some confusion.
>>>
>>> Without any guidance, I suspect that most participants will assume that the most liberal application of assistance applies. If left to one’s own judgement there will be a lot of differing implementations, which will leave people competing in the same class with different rules.
>>>
>>> As you say, the timing of the rules changes could have been better. Not only is the lead time short, it seems to me that implementing these rules now will cause confusion with what the Ad-Hoc committee is doing, recommending, or has done. - Duffey KK6MC
>