[NLRS] (LONG)Comments re: Contest Rules

[Donn Baker]

Below is the draft (3rd) of my comments on the proposed Rules revisions.  I
think this one is readable, and hopefully coherent.  Comments are welcome
before I actually send it off to the Committee. (Wednesday, probably.)  I
have NOT been reading the comments posted here yet, so I don't know to
qwhat degree there is overlap.

73 Donn
WA2VOI/0


Comments of Proposed VHF+ Contest Rules Changes
Donn Baker, WA2VOI


The committee is to be commended for their work... I believe that, in
general, they are on the correct track, and that over-all their work is
well done.  Obviously, I do not agree with everything they are
recommending.  I would like to point out what I feel are some serious
inconsistencies, major omissions, and perhaps incorrect approaches to the
proposed changes.

RULES CHANGES
The committee's stated goals were to:
1) encourage more people to work more other people
2) encourage more QSOs made over longer distances
3) encourage more people to join in and participate

In three areas of the proposed rules changes, I believe these goals were
compromised.

ROVER SCORING
The proposal to return to the "original" Rover scoring is, in my opinion, a
correct one.   The committee states:  "This change would encourage rovers
to go to rarer and more distant grids instead of staying closer to
metropolitan areas."   This is totally correct, and I am very glad the
committee understands this.  There needs to be a significant incentive to
drive 300 miles to a rare grid or two,  make a few Q's and then drive home
again... all in areas where there are few people, let alone hams who are
working the Contest.

The committee also recommends not allowing Rover scores in the Club
competition.  This is justified by saying, "Rovers would continue to
contribute substantially to increasing the scores of club members by
providing numerous QSO points and activating new grids."  I am less
enthusiastic about this proposal than Rover scoring, but I at least
understand its intent.  I would prefer NOT to this implemented, but it's a
reasonable compromise that I could live with.

However, there is a serious omission in the Rover Scoring proposal.  The
committee discusses the issue of "grid circling, says "its bad," but DOES
NOT OUTRIGHT PROHIBIT it.  This is a MAJOR problem.  

Please note that my issue is NOT GRID CIRCLING, per se,  but the LACK OF A
MEANINGFUL STAND by the committee.  DECIDE.   If it is ILLEGAL, define it.
If it IS NOT, stop harping about it, and accept that some people will make
the effort to do it, and even do it well (i.e., very high scores).   

If grid circling is to be illegal, then rules MUST be established and
published defining what constitutes Grid Circling.  I realize this is not a
trivial task... it is VERY difficult, but it MUST be done.  The obvious
answer that Rover to Rover Qs do not count is totally unacceptable and
CANNOT be considered.  The equally obvious answer of 16 serial Qs in 30
minutes on each of 6 bands from the three adjacent grids IS illegal, and
should be so stated.  The problem, of course, lies where in-between to draw
the line.  Rover to Rover QSOs MUST be allowed, but beyond that... ?


QSO POINT CHANGES
The committee recommends that "QSOs with Rover stations would count one QSO
point each, regardless of distance."  This is the most egregious and
wrong-headed of the proposals of the committee.  It DIRECTLY opposes all
three of the stated goals of the recommendations.  And it DIRECTLY opposes
the stated incentive for changing Rover scoring to "...encourage rovers to
go to rarer AND MORE DISTANT grids...." [Emphasis added.] 

Consider this situation:  A Rover is parked on the street in front of one
of several "fixed" stations.  All are located two grids away from W0XXX
(i.e., eligible for 3 QSO points), and conditions are marginal, at best.
W0XXX works one fixed station after considerable effort for 3 points.  Why
W0XXX then spend the time to work the rover for only 1 point, when all the
other fixed stations at the "same" distance give 3 points ?  Does this
"encourage more people to work more other people ?"    Remember, the second
stated goal was to "encourage QSOs made OVER LONGER DISTANCES."  [Emphasis
added]  

Does the Rover get 1 or 3 points for the QSO with W0XXX if its made ?  This
isn't stated (or isn't obvious to me, at least) in the proposal.  How about
Rover-to-Rover QSOs that would be worth 3 points if the stations were fixed
stations ?  Why should Rovers only get 1 point ?  Why should a rover make
the effort to go roving AT ANY DISTANCE, let alone go to a rare grid,  when
all the benefit goes to the (few) fixed stations they will contact ?  The
argument that the Rover will give out a new grid multiplier is true (and
valid) ONLY FOR THE FIXED STATIONS AT THE OTHER END OF THE QSO.  The Rover
derives no benefit what so ever for making the (sometimes considerable)
effort to go to a rare grid.  They can't even get full credit for the QSO
(3 points!!)

This portion of the proposals is a major DISINCENTIVE for anyone to operate
as a Rover, and as such does NOT "encourage more people to join in and
participate."  In the Club Competitions Rovers "contribute substantially"
by having QSOs counts 1/2 to 1/3 of a QSO made over the same distance with
a fixed station ?  Yes, Rovers will provide a limited number of grid
multipliers to Club Competition stations, but Rover activity will go down.  

In my opinion, if this proposal is implemented, there is no need to change
Rover scoring, as there will BE NO ROVERS.  

QSO Points the Same for All Bands
This is simply not in the best interests of VHF+ activity.  This scoring,
coupled with the distance scoring proposal, will lead to reduced activity
on the upper bands.  Laws of Physics mean that the higher the frequency,
the harder it is to make a QSO.  Therefore, the higher the band, the more
points each QSO should be worth.  The principal is EXACTLY the same as
making longer distance QSOs worth more than shorter distance ones (same
Laws of Physics), so why is one recognized, but not the other ?

For example, why should 6m QSOs made with sporadic-E skip, 5 watts, and a
20m dipole for an antenna be worth 3 points AND THE GRID MULTIPLIER, when
QSOs made on, say 2304 MHz, with a Rover 200 miles out, but still in an
adjacent grid, be worth only 1 point, and likely no multiplier ?  (i.e.,
have already worked someone in that grid.)


NEW CATAGORIES IN JAN/JUN/SEPT
50-144-432 Only category
The recommendation of a 50-144-432 MHz only category is good one.  With two
minor changes, I think it can be a GREAT one.  

First, it MUST include 222 MHz.  Yes, the standard multi-band transceivers
do not include 222 MHz. (See "How we got here" in the original posting.)
However, by explicitly EXCLUDING 222 MHz, you risk signaling that the ARRL
is ABANDONING that band.  There IS 222 MHz equipment available... Kenwood,
ADI, Alden, and I believe Icom all make 222 MHz FM equipment.  DownEast
Microwave and Elecraft both make excellent 222 MHz to 28 MHz transverters,
which certainly can use the commercial HF/VHF/UHF radios as the i.f.  Yaesu
offered a 222 MHz module for its FT-736.  222 MHz equipment is available,
and if there is economic incentive to provide it, all manufactures will.
By not including 222 MHz in this new category, you are proving that there
is no activity, and therefore no need to provide equipment.  (As an aside,
in the Jan 04 VHF Sweepstakes, 18% of my QSOs were on 222 MHz, and a major
portion of those were on 223.5 MHz FM.)  By including 222 MHz, you provide
an incentive for the newcomers who become interested in doing things other
than "repeaters."  This directly supports the stated goal of increased
participation and QSO count.

Secondly, I would suggest expanding the "low power" to two sub-categories:
"Low power," 50 watt maximum; and "medium power."  The 50 watt low power
category is chosen for two reasons as being "ideal" for the beginner:
1) it is the maximum power 30-300 MHz that is categorically exempt from FCC
Exposure Limits.  2) it is the de facto standard for most of the multi-band
equipment that can be purchased today.  

The medium power category should be limited to the same "150 watts" of the
remaining categories, as adding a commercial "brick" is a simple task. 

FM-only category (needed)
The lack of a recommendation for an FM-only category surprised me. I would
have thought this would have been the first, and most obvious,
recommendation made.  There are many more "beginners" with single- or
dual-band FM rigs than there are with HF/VHF/UHF rigs.  I strongly suspect
that more of them would be interested in Contesting IF THEY COULD COMPETE.
The new 50-144-(222-)432 MHz category will not attract these people because
they are simply not competitive with stations equipped with SSB, even at
the same power levels.  Many of these stations will have a co-linear
vertical, with RG-8X feed line.  In a contest, they will work the dozen or
so stations within range, and that's it.  There is little incentive because
almost any SSB-equipped station will do much, MUCH better.  In an FM-only
category, these stations can compete amongst themselves and, as a side
benefit, provide more QSOs for bigger (i.e., SSB-equipped) stations.  Such
a category supports two of the three stated goals of the recommendations.


AWARDS CHANGES
GREAT CARE must be taken here to not dilute the value of the awards already
in existence.   The introduction of NEW Awards is a good idea, but do not
modify the existing ones.


GENERAL OBSERVATIONS / OPINIONS
There is a decided "spin" away from the "+" of VHF+ activity.  I see this
as a decided preference for the "appliance operator" vs. the "technically
astute," or even "would like to know more" operator; a decided preference
for supporting commercial (i.e., the "big four" manufactures) interests;
and the appearance of retreat from the microwave bands.  I am, frankly, at
a lost to know if this is accurate, and if it is, what to make of it.  

(PLEASE NOTE that I do not "accuse" anyone of anything... this is how I
interpret what has been proposed given my interests and biases.)

The goal SHOULD be to get new-comers involved, but you CANNOT penalize
those already there.  Some of the proposed changes have the appearance of
doing just that.  Encourage beginners to expand their knowledge and
capabilities, but do not bring experienced and technically minded operators
"down to the level" of beginners.  I have a de jevu sense of the Incentive
Licensing push of the 1960s... but IN REVERSE.  It was a well-intentioned,
but very bad idea then, and some of these proposals, equally
well-intentioned, are just as bad today !

Respectfully,

Donn Baker
WA2VOI/0
(licensed 1962-present)