[NLRS] VUAC input: EME & Rover contest rules

[W0ZQ at aol.com]

The VHF contesting community and the ARRL's VHF  UHF Advisory Committee 
(VUAC) is once again discussing the EME and rover contest  rules.  As your Dakota 
Division VUAC representative I would like to hear  from you on these two 
subjects if you have a position that you would like to  express.  If you live 
outside of the Dakota division, I am still interested  in your thoughts, but please 
copy your own ARRL Division VUAC rep for full  representation.  Your VUAC rep 
and contact info can be found at  http://www.remote.
arrl.org/contests/vuac.html  . 

EME Contest  Rules.  
The following points are being discussed.  EMEers who are  active on the EME 
reflector have seen this list before .... here it is: 
1.  How best to divide activities on different bands among 2 or 3 contest  
weekends?
2. Should CW and Digital activities take place on the same or  different 
weekends?
3. Should there be any Assisted categories?  In  other words, should any 
real-time liaison, solicitation, self-spotting, or  arrangement of QSOs by non-EME 
means be permitted during the contest?
4.  Should there be separate Analog, Digital, and Mixed-Mode entry categories?
5.  Are the present "band categories" too many, or poorly chosen?  
6. What  is the optimum format for presentation of results in QST and on the 
ARRL web  site?


Of these topics, perhaps item # 3 is the most discussed.   At this time its 
my perception that the VUAC is leaning to totally eliminate the  assisted class 
and to explicitly prohibit Internet usage.  Any pro's and  con's that you 
have on this topic, or any of these six topics, would be  appreciated.

Rover Rules:
The June and yet-to-be August contest  results will show that pack roving is 
a superior strategy for winning.  The  newest rover rules were created with a 
limit on the number of rover to any one  other rover contacts in an explicit 
attempt to create an operating class for  rovers who do not want to pack rover 
(Rover) and for those who want to  (Unlimited Rover).  That limit is currently 
100.  In addition, the  Limited Rover was created which was purposely limited 
to low power (SOLP) and  four band to attract those who may want to give 
roving a try but who may not  have lots of equipment and/or experience.   Last 
June, one Limited  Rover operated in a rover pack with other Rovers using 2304, 
3456, 5670 and 10G  and generated a score 3x over the second place Limited 
Rover.

Rover  Question # 1:  Would you favor or oppose a change to the definition of 
what  a Limited Rover is from the current definition of "any four bands of 
your  choosing" to "50, 144, 432 and any one other band" OR perhaps "50, 144, 
222, and  432".  

Rover Question # 2:  Would you favor or oppose an  adjustment to the rover 
rules that would strengthen the concept that pack rovers  should compete away 
from non-pack rovers and in the Unlimited Rover  class.   One suggestion for 
such a change is to decrease the number of  rover to any one other rover contacts 
from 100 to 10, or perhaps 30.    There are other concepts being explored 
too.   


In  Summary:   If you have an opinion on either or both subjects please  drop 
me an email direct and off reflector.  If I hear nothing, I assume  that you 
do not have a strong opinion one way or the other on this  subject.  Again, if 
you live outside of Dakota Division please make sure to  copy your VUAC rep 
per the above link.

73, Jon
W0ZQ
Dakota VUAC 
**************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, 
and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com 
today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?redir=http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp
%26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)