> This proposal does not clearly define captive rover.
On the contrary:
"2.X.1 Reporting requirements: A multi-operator station must submit a
list of their captive rovers to vhfcaptiveroverlist@arrl.org prior to
submitting the multi-op log. Each captive rover must submit their
entire log by the normal deadline in order for qsos between the rover
and the multi-op to count. All multi-op qsos with their affiliated
Captive rovers not submitting a log will be disallowed."
"2.X. Captive Rover: One or two operators of a rover station affiliated
with one or more multi-operator stations. A captive rovers' focus is
on making qsos with their affiliated multi-operator station(s) from
inactive or low activity grid squares."
How much more explicit does it need to be? Captive are those rovers
that a multi-op says are theirs. If they're not, then the multi-op
doesn't get to include their score. By identifying who your captives
are, you get the bonus of not only working them for multiplier and 1 pt
per qso, but you get to add their total score to the bottom line.
The strategy for operating as a captive may change from what those who
are captives today do. The difference is that the score the captive
rover makes gets added to the multiop score. So, a new strategy comes
into play. The multi-op needs the multipliers, so the rover will need
to go, but the rover could earn big points by working others too. How
to balance that would prove interesting.
>In addition, this rule proposal fails to address the inequity in the
scoring of circling rovers versus DX rovers -- which is the largest
problem with the current rules.
On the contrary:
The circling rovers, would now be in a different category (Rover Team)
and would not be competing with "DX rovers" which I presume are
equivalent to what I'm now calling "Independent Rovers" - which is the
plain old rover category simply under a new name.
> The political debate is this: should the cost of entry to the contest
be a commitment to collectivism. Should stations be free to work
whomever they want, wherever they want (leaving the op to decide
what "fun" is). Or are stations the collective property of the
contest, and thus be forced to work everyone they can (with the ARRL
deciding what "fun" is). The collectivist rovers will be forced to
select their sites to ensure they work at least N stations on each
band. They will need to remain near populated areas, or drop the higher
bands in order to make the proper "showing." Collectivist scoring will
decrease pleasure and decrease grid activation, decreasing contest
activity. On the other hand, free rovers determine what "fun" is for
them -- which is the best way to ensure they continue to participate. <
I'm afraid I don't agree that this is in any way a political issue.
> It is ironic that this rule proposal refers to non-captive stations
as "independent" -- they would be anything but. It is the way of
collectivists everywhere to redefine terms to suit their agenda: to a
collectivist "freedom" means freedom from the tedium of having to make
many choices.
>
Exactly what are you drawing that conclusion on? None of the rule
changes that I proposed would affect rovers who are in fact independent
from a multi-op or not part of a pack/team. No changes are proposed to
the existing rover rules aside from changing the name to Independent
Rover to further clarify the distinction between the 3 new rover
classes.
73,
Bob W5OV
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|