There is a critical assumption here that the goal is to encourage activity on the higher bands. I don't share that assumption or belief (sacrilege!). I think the goal should be to maximize the number
<snip> Good point. Someone could choose to circle a grid corner with the intent of working as many stations as possible (changing grids is like changing bands). Would this be objectionable? Probably
I'd suggest making this category "any three bands" to avoid arbitrarily locking out 222 MHz (or any other band for that matter). Certainly, the IC-706/FT-100/etc folks will choose 50-144-432 MHz any
What if the anti-grid-circling rule included some kind of time limit but one that only applies to rover-to-rover contacts. For example, using Dan's "can't re-enter the same grid for one hour" rule, w
Ken, Good point. I knew it was complicated but I missed the asymmetry... A rover would need to know what the other rover had done in terms of grid movement to determine if an additional QSO would be
There is a new email list (via Yahoo groups) formed that focuses on VHF (and higher) QRP operation, including VHF contesting. The description is shown below. 73, Bob K0NR VHF QRP Yahoo Group http://g
I think there is some truth to this. I find it difficult to hit both of these with full force. On the other hand, it has always been this way so it wouldn't explain any trend in contest participatio
This idea is interesting. However, based on the screaming and yelling on this and other reflectors concerning much less drastic changes to VHF contests, I can't imagine this being supported by the V
Most of the discussion about awards in VHF contests has been focused on the awards for winning some particular category/region in the VHF contest. Another motivation for working contests (VHF+ or HF)
Well, it was a little too quiet on the vhfcontesting list, so it probably is time to re-hash grid circling :-) First, let me say that I think grid circling is dumb. A waste of time. Some kind of deme