[NLRS] Fw: Possible VHF contest rules changes

[Ronald Bergantzel via NLRS]

Hello all. Yes , it is very good from an EME operator's point of view... when they implement the new rules .  I have been in contact with the ARRL and others and have asked that along with and in alignment with the current proposal that the DIGITAL category reinstatement be added to the EME Contest . This after I watched literally dozens of 144 EME stations virtually 'disappear' from sight , right at the start of the contest last weekend , which I believe is a type of boycott due to the rules that are presently in use that DO NOT allow usage of 'operating aids' that are always currently being used when operating JT65 eme . NOW  before anyone feels the need to get on and hammer out statements like it JT65 QSOs are not real , or people cheat using 'operating aids' or whatever , please stop and think , and fully understand everything first .
If anyone wants to make any negative comments , please email them to me and let's spare the NLRS group !! Also , if you do not fully have a through understanding , please feel free to contact me direct and we can even discuss it via phone too.
Please consider me in total favor of the new rule change proposal  - anything to stir up more activity !! 
73s , Ron Bergantzel KA0RYT  - EN35

--- On Thu, 11/13/14, Paul Husby <husby002 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Paul Husby <husby002 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [NLRS] Possible VHF contest rules changes
> To: "NRLS Reflector" <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>, badgercontesters at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Thursday, November 13, 2014, 10:36 AM
> 
> 
> I was very excited to read the possible rules changes at:
> 
> http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-seeks-input-on-initial-vhf-uhf-microwave-contest-rule-changes
> 
> Rules changes over the years have mostly been of two types:
> 1.  Add awards / operator categories in hopes of
> increasing activity
> 2.  Tweak perceived inequities (i.e. the Rover
> debacle)
> 
> The current proposal does not seek to change who wins, or
> how many 
> people win.  The goal is to simply increase the
> likelihood of finding 
> signals on the air.
> 
> I have operated as SingleOp, MultiOp, and as a
> single-operator MultiOp.  
> Being under the MultiOp rules is much more fun, and the
> changes would 
> open up the best parts to the single-op.  Watching
> Bruce's dog on the 
> APRS map is both helpful and entertaining! Opening up the
> mic on a 
> second radio in my setup lets me feel twice as
> constructive:  I can get 
> no answers on two bands rather than just one!  But
> also, people could 
> run digital on one band while calling SSB on another. 
> We badly need 
> more signals on the air.
> 
> There are some points that will cause an uproar.  One
> is the possibility 
> of allowing use of repeaters for announcements (but not
> making 
> contacts).  Some purists will have a fit about allowing
> self-spotting:  
> you could find someone's frequency without doing it on your
> own.  But 
> most people have such good antennas now that finding each
> other is 
> largely a matter of luck.
> 
> Please read through the proposal and see what you think, but
> overall I 
> believe it is badly needed.
> 
> 73
> Paul W0UC
> ______________________________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>