New General Rules

Rules
21

In reply to MM0FMF:

Hi Andy,

My point is that the General Rules are the General Rules. In the words of the Website the SOTA Bible. They apply now and are absolute. We are promised further review, but until such time as they are amended they are the rules.

It appears that the intention is for the MT to turn a blind eye to contraventions of the rules for the time being, which is not a course of action I am entirely comfortable with.

Sorry didn’t mean to start a war, I’ll go away and be quiet now…

73 de Paul G4MD

22

In reply to G4MD:

It appears that the intention is for the MT to turn a blind eye to
contraventions of the rules for the time being, which is not a course
of action I am entirely comfortable with.

Well strictly, what has been changed is a “guiding principle”. The “rule” for activators and chasers is that the summit must be in the ARM current on the day of the activation. I presume that any existing contraventions of the 150m criterion will remain valid unless and until the relevant ARMs are changed.

I do think it would be helpful if the MT could indicate whether there is any immediate action proposed on this matter, or whether we just live with the anomalies until the wider issue is settled.

23

These matters are being discussed currently. No action is proposed at the current time, for the discussion is ongoing and hence decision has not yet been made. We will take whatever time necessary to find the best way forward for the Programme.

The current ARMs, and data from them available in the Database and SOTAwatch, remain valid until such time as they are updated.

Tom M1EYP

24

In reply to M1MAJ:

Hi Martyn,

Very sorry if I appear to be pedantic, and for my somewhat frivolous initial approach to this subject, but I do feel very strongly about it.

Well strictly, what has been changed is a “guiding
principle”.

True. But the guiding principle as modified embodies an absolute minimum for the vertical distance between the summit and it’s col of 150m.

The “rule” for activators and chasers is
that the summit must be in the ARM current on the day of the
activation.

This is not a rule I can find in the General Rules. In fact General Rule 3.12.4 says that when there is a discrepancy between an ARM and the General Rules, the General Rules prevail.

So the situation we have is that according to our Rules a good number of the summits found in ARM’s throughout the programme are in fact invalid. We in the UK are fortunate not to be affected, I would not be happy if I were an activator in some of the other associations where the status of our summits is in question.

I cannot comprehend why a set of rules which, although allowing interpretations that seemed unfair, were actually consistent with the status quo, has been exchanged for rules which are much more explicit, and conflict with much existing documentation, but without the will to enforce them. This cannot benefit associations in the creation - they must be mightily confused by now.

73 de Paul G4MD

Note - last paragraph edited to better express my intended meaning.

25

In reply to all:

Hi all!
Firstly, sorry for my poor english, I hope everyone can understand.what I mean.
Secondly, although I’m a member of Hungarian MT, this is my personal opinion; do not reflect the “official” point of view of our association. (It probably will be a bit more diplomatic – but I’m not a diplomat.)
Les, I do not understand your hurry. I just do not believe, there are lot of new associations eager to join SOTA right now. (Is there any at all? If so, wouldn’t they be patient for a while???) Issuing the new General Rules in recent circumstances shows only the real intention of MT. The discussion on the EMG list seems to be only bluff, and looses its sense.
Some of associations (OE, SV, HA) have been accused on the Reflector of non-complying with General Rules. Obviously, this is the result of misinterpreting of “surroundings”, and I must FIRMLY DENY THIS CHARGE! Although this is not directly stated in ARMs (except Austrian), all the summits of these associations are well higher than “surroundings + 150m”, fully complied with General Rules 3.5.1. (Provided the “surroundings” mean the average height of the country. With the “datum”, the situation is even better.)
Other question is the “vertical separation”. (BTW I would use the more exact “minimum drop surrounding peak” instead). Till now, according the (former) General Rules 3.5.2 this was left at association’s discretion. These associations decided to implement 100 m, which also fully complied with GR. Now, if we want to comply with the new GR, have to delete more than 2/3 of our summits. I consider these unexpected and unreasonable changes unfair and unacceptable.
You, guys in England, Wales, etc. are very proud of being separate DXCC entity and forming separate associations within the UK. Why you aren’t (weren’t) brave enough to change your ARM (in full compliance with GR) instead of forcing others to use your Marilyn-like definition. With introduction of new GR this possibility is over now…
Both the Reflector and the EMG list get stuck on the petty-mined debate over 100/150 m. Anybody has any idea what do these numbers mean???
I have made a very quick end rough evaluation of the terrain in some areas of SOTA community. The relative density of summits with “vertical separation” above 100 m on the Alps (OE, HB) is 35-40/1000 km sq. while on the hilly areas of “flat” countries (G, GW, HA) only 5. (More clearly, this is the average number of summits within a 30 km diameter circle.) On the Alps 60-65% of these summits have more then 150 m vertical separation, on other mentioned areas only a bit more than 30%.
Taking into consideration such a big difference:
How do you think, is it possible to establish strict rules, equally concerning all associations (and equally accepted by all associations)?
How do you think, in case if more flexible rules, can SOTA exist without permanent (or periodically appearing) disagreement among associations?
Answers up to you.
73!
Janos, HA4FY

26

In reply to HA4FY:

Les, I do not understand your hurry. I just do not believe, there are
lot of new associations eager to join SOTA right now. (Is there any at
all? If so, wouldn’t they be patient for a while???) Issuing the new
General Rules in recent circumstances shows only the real intention of
MT. The discussion on the EMG list seems to be only bluff, and looses
its sense.

Thanks for your comments Janos. Whilst I understand your concerns, I think you have misunderstood the significance of the recent amendments to the General Rules.

If you believe that there are no new Associations eager to join SOTA, please look at “Expressions of Interest” on Summits on the Air and you will find that there are a significant number listed. That is the main reason that the amended rules were published, to make the requirements easier to understand for newcomers. With so many applicants, all at different stages of the process, why should they have to wait for a decision that may not directly affect them?

There was no “bluff” involved with discussions on the EMG (extended management group) list, which involves the MT and the Association Managers of all current SOTA Associations. It is a genuine dialogue from which we hope to find a mutually-acceptable solution to our present difficulties. The newly-published rules merely serve as a clearer (hopefully) expression of the current SOTA requirements, and may be changed to reflect any decisions taken as a result of discussions in the EMG. There is no suggestion of any pre-judgement by the MT.

As an existing Association, Hungary fully complied with the requirements of the General Rules at the time, and to the satisfaction of the MT. Nobody has suggested that Hungary, or any other Association, should immediately change their summit list as a result of the latest set of General Rules. Once the discussion within the EMG is complete, and agreement is reached, there may be implications for some, or all, Associations; we will have to wait and see. Until that time Hungary, and every other Association, should continue in accordance with their published, and agreed, ARM.

Thanks for your thoughts Janos, I hope that I have been able to re-assure you of our intentions.

73 de Les, G3VQO

27

In reply to G3VQO:
Hi Les!
Thanks for reply. Let’s say, it’s a tie. I understand and accept your intention, nevertheless still deeming the quick and drastic change of rule 3.5.2. unnecessary, even from the newcomer association’s perspective. I understand, it will not change anything – it is the MT’s business.
Regarding to EMG discussions, I’m very sceptic. Why? I’m sure, you (and I hope the majority of SOTA participant) understand that the whole disturbance on the Reflector was born by green human envy.
How XXxxx can activate 4 ten-pointer within half a day, whilst I have to drive hours for a wretched 1 point!!?
How YYyyy can reach the “Mountain Goat” status within few days, whilst I have been chaser for years, and cannot reach even 100 point!?
These questions remain unanswerable, whatever new rules will be implemented or refused.
SRI.
73!
Janos, HA4FY

28

You are absolutely correct Janos, different associations with different topographes will never be directly comparable. The MT is simply seeking to address the problem of possible conflict that exists within the General Rules, and therefore between the General Rules and some ARMs. We are working to put this right, and as such have opened the consultation with the Association Managers. We simply aim to improve on the current situation, and appreciate your opinions as a contribution to that process.

BTW, I heard you call this morning, and I replied to you (although I think I initially called you back as ‘HA3FY’) but you disappeared in QSB. I heard you briefly come back to me, but then fade out again. Thanks for the call anyway.

73, Tom M1EYP