ARRL Considers "Major" Rules Changes to ARRL DX; Distance-Based Scoring, Single Op Time Limits Considered

By Jamie Dupree NS3T radio-sport.net
Posted June 13, 2011

The ARRL Contest Advisory Committee is considering a series of major rules changes for the ARRL DX Contest, some of which have sparked strong email battles in recent days over how best to foster changes that will bring increased participation in the future.
The major ideas being considered at this point include:
A distance-based scoring method
Single Op time limits of less than 48 hours
As one might expect, the idea of changing the rules for ARRL DX has brought with it a storm of opposition, much of it coming down on the Dick Green WC1M, the head of the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee.
"Sounds like the rumor mill is way ahead of the actual facts!" Green told radio-sport.net this past weekend.
"At the moment we happen to be looking at ARRL DX rules, and our members have had discussions with various contesters about them. That's probably the source of the rumors," Green said, as he downplayed the idea of imminent rules changes.
"If you were to ask me, "Will there be rule changes in ARRL DX rules sometime in the future?", I would honestly have to answer, "I don't know and I couldn't even predict the odds," Green told radio-sport.net.
But while that is the public explanation, the lay of the land is a bit different on the inside, as Green acknowledged last Friday that the changes being considered by the CAC to ARRL DX are "major" - as contesters start to get wind of this rules debate.
This past Thursday, Green emailed members of the CAC to say there would be four choices up for a vote on Single Operator time limits in ARRL DX:
No change - 48 hours
40 hour limit
38 hour limit
36 hour limit
"We'll put this matter to a vote soon," Green wrote his fellow CAC members. "In the meantime, let's continue discussing the merits of these choices."
As one might expect, the idea of making ARRL DX less than a 48 hour contest for single operators has drawn some sharp opposition from some of those who see the competition as part radio-contest, part Iron-Man event.
As for the idea of a distance-based scoring system - much like that used for the Stew Perry 160 Meters contest - that has also roiled the waters and drawn some strong opposition as well.
The idea of using a distance-based scoring system could certainly change what is an East Coast bias in the top finishing slots of the ARRL DX Contest.
The idea is nothing new, as the ARRL CAC has looked at the possibility through the years, deciding against any such changes in ARRL DX.

What About Changes In ARRL DX?
What do you think about distance scoring in ARRL DX? Should there be changes in the limits for Single Operators?
Send your opinions to radio-sport.net

Opposition To ARRL DX Changes

In recent days, a group of more established contesters has signaled their opposition to any rules changes in the ARRL DX Contest, with maybe the most prominent voice that of Jeff Briggs K1ZM/VY2ZM.
"Rules changes which increase participation in the ARRL Dx Tests (which was the principal mandate given the CAC by HQ as I understand it) are most welcome to be sure. Among these are possible additions to categories of participation, possible additions to the multipliers for entrants, additions of on air timeframe categories, possible overlay classes and the like. These concepts have worked well in the WPX contest and HQ would likely benefit by implementing as many of these as the HQ Contest Desk can readily absorb.
What worries me, though, are the more radical changes. These changes, which may appear as innocent changes initially, may in their final application become real "game changers" to the basic fabric of the contest once they become well understood. This type of change should only be made when its impacts have been thoroughly tested, are well understood and backed up by hard data. That is to say, we need to know what their true impacts and benefits are - before any hard recommendations are made up the line to ARRL HQ by the chair of the CAC.
Distance-based scoring, is one area of real concern, and in this area, the following questions need to be well understood and evaluated:
1) What is at issue here is whether the CAC should willingly and with full knowledge of the impacts - recommend a rule change which specifically is aimed at MARGINALIZING contesters in the Northeastern corridor of the USA and Maritime Canada?
2) Is it right to reorder the "pecking order" of the Top Ten W/VE finishers in an ARRL DX Test, eg: creating an environment whereby stations on the Western edges of New England and those in PA, NJ and northern VA may leapfrog those competitors in NH and EMA - as well as those in the Maritimes - when RAW SCORES under the present rule set are re-scored using distance-based criteria? If this is proven to be the end product of such an action, is it a desirable impact? Stated another way, is guaranteed handicapping of the ARRL Dx Test Top 10 a desirable outcome here? Will W5 stations now be able to seriously compete with and perhaps leapfrog a station in MA? Would distance-based scoring ever allow a West Coast station to win again?
3) Is it fair to target a rules change towards one or a small group of East Coast stations who seem to place well much of the time in the ARRL DX Test?
From a historical perspective, there is also this observation that I would add:
DURING ALL THE YEARS PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL HERE AT VY2ZM - NO ONE EVER UNDERTOOK A SPECIFIC RULES CHANGE TO MARGINALIZE A K1AR NOR A K5ZD NOR A K1EA - NOR A SPECIFIC REGION BY MEANS OF A CAC SPONSORED RULES CHANGE IN THE ARRL DX CONTEST. WHILE THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A NEW ENGLAND BIAS, HQ ALWAYS (and rightly so) REJECTED THAT LOGIC BECAUSE I AM SURE THEY HAD SEVERE MISGIVINGS ABOUT BASIC FAIRNESS...HQ IS ALWAYS AVERSE TO 'TAKING AWAY' SOMETHING FROM ONE GROUP WHENEVER CHANGES ARE MADE - AND THEY CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THAT AXIOM AS FAR AS I KNOW ... So I suggest that the CAC really take a hard look at all of this, and analyze the true impacts of what is being discussed using hard data, and if there is a compelling logic to go with it, then I will (as should everyone else) accept it in good faith and give it a chance. Personally, I wish the CAC the best of success with their deliberations."