duhhhh....I agree, why bother to roam, if this is
the case?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Carney" <tomc7@earthlink.net>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF+ contest
proposals: input invited
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Steve Gilmore - W4SHG" <shg@staffnet.com>
| >
| > 2) QSO Point Changes
| >
| > Standardizing point scoring to two (2)
points, 3 points and a
| > Rover contact only being one no matter where
the rover is located is
| INSANE.
| > Why again penalize the rovers who travel to a
distant grid that have no
| VHF
| > activity. Stupid Idea, sorry folks but this
concept again penalizes the
| > rovers who work harder than anyone in these
contests.
| >
|
| I absolutely agree with this. Why should a
station only get one point for
| working a rover? Why would anyone bother
responding to the CQ of a rover
| during a six meter band opening when the band is
boiling with three points
| oportunities? It's not even clear what problem
the committee is attempting
| to solve with this rule.
|
| Although I have operated most recent contest as
a rover, if this rule is
| adopted, it is very very unlikley I will ever
operate as a rover again. OK
| might rove during the CQ VHF test.
|
| 73 Tom KE6FI
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| VHFcontesting mailing list
| VHFcontesting@contesting.com
|
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfco
ntesting
|
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|