was anyone, ANYONE, surveyed or asked about these changes prior to them
being enacted.....anyone ???? Bueller ?!?!?!?
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
To: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>; "pete.n4zr@gmail.com"
<pete.n4zr@gmail.com>
Cc: "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: 2/17/2022 8:42:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL to allow self-spotting in contests
Regardless of the validity of the "nobody asked us" argument, there remains a
perception (at least) that a minority of contest operators are making changes for their
own sakes, and not necessarily for the improvement of the contest in question as a whole.
And that these changes, some of which may actually be beneficial for all in
both the short and long run, are being implemented whether or not other members
of the worldwide contesting operators/community have a say in it... or if they
have a say, are necessarily listened to.
The result of this perception... and whether it is accurate or not is not the
point... is that some operators will choose to simply not bother to operate a
contest, or will scale back to casual operating rather than competitive
operating, as they had done in the past. Which will result in a net loss in
potential contest contacts for all. (Granted, some of that may and will happen
whenever there is a change in the rules... I'm simply suggesting that it is
more so when operators believe that their opinions are neither solicited nor
considered)
That's my observation on the situation. Take it into consideration as much or
as little as you like.
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>
To: Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 17, 2022 7:52 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL to allow self-spotting in contests
It really isn’t the “nobody asked us” defense. Quite the opposite. There
were several in the contest community who wanted contest rules out of the
hands of the full Board and into the hands of the CAC and radiosport
department. It doesn’t mean we don’t have input. It simply means that we
don’t have a formal vote on every contest rule change.
As for smaller S&P stations? I’m not sure what changes for you. Care to
elaborate?
I think a lot of us with smaller stations share frustrations of not being
able to be competitive, for various reasons.
Ria
N2RJ
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:05 AM Pete Smith N4ZR <pete.n4zr@gmail.com> wrote:
But Ria, what about those of us with small stations who like assisted
S&P? Surely there should be room for those of us who don't want to
self-spot, but find unassisted S&P endless frustration. I'm with you -
surely it would have been better to add a class.
As for the Board not having voted on these new rules, why the heck not?
Surely this isn't the "nobody asked us" defense? If the Board aren't
responsible for what people subordinate to you do, who is?
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the new Reverse Beacon Network
web server at<http://beta.reversebeacon.net>.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.
On 2/16/2022 9:11 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
> Hans, things progressed exactly as some of the harshest critics desired
it
> to go.
>
> But anyway, everything is in the minutes. There were no motions by the
> Board to adopt these rules.
>
> Do I agree with them? My desire was for an “ultra unlimited” category to
> have streaming and self spotting. I didn’t get that. I’m one voice.
>
> Do we need to adapt and evolve? Yes.
>
> But I’m glad we kept unassisted, so those who desire legacy contesting
have
> their sandbox to play in.
>
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:53 PM Hans Brakob<kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nice sidestep, Director.
>>
>> 73, de Hans, KØHB
>> “Just a Boy and his Radio”™
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* CQ-Contest<cq-contest-bounces+kzerohb=gmail.com@contesting.com>
>> on behalf ofrjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:24:37 PM
>>
>> *To:* Ken Boasi<n2zn@rochester.rr.com>
>> *Cc:* Barry W2UP<w2up.co@gmail.com>; CQ-Contest Reflector <
>> cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL to allow self-spotting in contests
>>
>> The full Board does not make a motion to adopt rules changes anymore.
>> This goes direct from the PSC to the radiosport department. There is a
>> PSC report that is adopted (in the consent agenda) but that's about
>> it. Also, the CAC is actually driving these rule changes now with the
>> PSC merely approving their recommendations.
>>
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:43 PM Ken Boasi<n2zn@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:
>>> I’m not an ARRL apologist, but the CAC has been discussing this since
at
>> least a year ago, and made a recommendation for this change in their
July
>> meeting. You can look up the minutes on the ARRL website. It is task
>> 2020.5.
>>> I presume it was adopted in January at the ARRL Board meeting.
>>>
>>> I am not in favor of the change, but I guess I had my chance to comment
>> on this (like the rest of us) over the past year, and failed to do so,
>> either because I wasn’t paying attention, forgot to, or just assumed
that
>> “they would never do something like that”. Lesson learned…
>>> 73, Ken N2ZN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 3:35 PM, Barry W2UP<w2up.co@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So which contest software will be the first to add, "self-spot every
>> 15
>>>> seconds"?
>>>>
>>>> Seems ARRL is back on its secrecy kick. I just renewed my ARRL
>> membership
>>>> for the 52nd year. It may be my last.
>>>>
>>>> Barry W2UP
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:36 AM PY2NY<py2ny.vitor@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Good afternoon.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know exactly what to say or think about. My first impression
>>>>> isn't good, including for those guys that are always "Assisted".
>>>>> DXCluster will have thousands of self-spots.
>>>>> Thanks God I'm always "no-Assisted"...
>>>>>
>>>>> 73 DX and see you all next weekend.
>>>>> .
>>>>> ..
>>>>> ...
>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>> PY2NY / SP9NY / V26NY - Vitor Luis Aidar dos Santos
>>>>> http://military-jeep-brasil.blogspot.com.br/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Em qua., 16 de fev. de 2022 às 09:23, Randy Thompson <
>> k5zd@outlook.com>
>>>>> escreveu:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From the ARRL Contest Update today:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "New Rules in effect for all ARRL HF Contests in June
>>>>>> Starting with the ARRL International Digital Contest, in all
>> categories
>>>>>> that allow assistance (Unlimited), the use of online and other
>>>>> non-amateur
>>>>>> radio platforms including but not limited to social media, live
video
>>>>>> streaming, and internet chat rooms will be allowed. In all Unlimited
>> and
>>>>>> Multioperator categories, the prohibition of self-spotting, and
>> asking
>>>>>> another station to spot you, will also be removed."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow. It was one thing for the VHF contests to allow use of chat
>> rooms
>>>>> and
>>>>>> telephone calls, now this is extended to all HF contests. It should
>> be
>>>>>> interesting to see what unintended consequences result from allowing
>>>>>> multi-ops and assisted competitors to spot themselves. You could
spot
>>>>>> yourself with every CQ if you wanted to. Or you can call people on
>> the
>>>>>> phone and ask them to get on the air. Or send out email reminders to
>> work
>>>>>> you during the contest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is likely to have the most impact on SSB to produce spotting
>> equal to
>>>>>> what the RBN does for CW and RTTY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For an organization that has always been so timid and conservative
on
>>>>> rule
>>>>>> changes, the ARRL seems to have sprung this one without much
>> consultation
>>>>>> with the contest community. I assume it is in reaction to the W2RE
>>>>>> incident several years ago in ARRL DX where he used live streaming
on
>>>>>> Facebook during the contest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Randy K5ZD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|