>Jim, AF6O <mail@jimforsyth.com> wrote:
>
>Well there is a common understanding, in principle, of both captive
>roving and grid circling and there has been a lot of discussion of both
>on here and some of it has been meaningful. The problem comes when you
>need an exact definition to be used in a rule, then you discover it is
>impossible to pin either of them down with precision so that you could
>say this station is doing it and that station is not doing it.
>
>I would be amused to see a rule with a definition of either because then
>the game would be to operate just on the legal side of the line and the
>whole arguement would start up again.
>
>73 Jim, AF6O
>
Thanks for that "opening" Jim.
Summary...I think the area to address is the "Scoring" methodology...and NOT
with Quotas or limits or having to be worried about "defining" the behavior.
If the incentive is not there in the scoring methodology, the behavior will
change.
There are multiple factors at work here and what seems to be a lot of
different interpretations of what is what. Grid Circling, Pack Roving, Grid
Dancing, Captive Roving, Captive Pack Roving, Grid Pack Circling Captive
Dancing Roving...yow, I'm sure there are many, many more names and
descriptions with combinations and variations of these words.
Whether or not rovers who participate in "whatever we choose to refer to or
define this form of activity" work stations OTHER than their "partner
rover(s)" is somewhat "secondary"...the BASELINE score possible by having
one (or more) OTHER stations with capability for the GHz bands travelling in
the same areas/to the same set of Grid Squares PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY to
generate LOTS of FOUR point QSOs (EIGHT pointers in January), regardless of
ham population in the vicinity, IS significant whether 354 OTHER contacts
are made (out of 994 in June 2006, predominantly in SJV) or 10-100 or so
(out of counts in the 2,000 range in January 2005, predominantly in WTX).
This is NOT intended to be an attack on John, N6MU (GREAT First Name, by the
way ;-) or the others involved (N6HC, W6XD and KG6TOA) in June 2006, or
those involved in the January 2005 achievement, just using it as an example
to demonstrate this "advantage" of the baseline scores, and since John HAS
contributed to the reflector regarding this. Let us also NOT forget that
these two (or three) rovers were out and covered LOTS OF Grid Squares (16 by
2 in June 2006, 22 by 3 in January 2005) with equipment capable of TEN
Bands...IMHO, that IS an ACHIEVEMENT.
Looking at the numbers from the Scores Database from the ARRL Members-only
area for the 2006 June Contest, let's note that the QSO and Multiplier
Totals for N6MU and W6XD ARE INDENTICAL for the 3456, 5760 and 10G
Bands...who do you suppose THOSE QSOs were with? Were they worked over a
GREAT distance or "just across the grid borders"? Maybe a few were "more
distant" but I suspect it was the latter case for the majority of
them...it's only at 2304 and below where it appears that OTHER stations were
worked (it's not that many at 2304, and even for 902 and 1296, the count of
"other" QSOs is only in the "teens"). SO...what would N6MU's score have been
withOUT all of the QSOs (and multipliers not worked) from the roving
"partner", W6XD? (And feel free to correct me John, or any of the others
involved).
Even if JUST the 3456, 5760 and 10G QSOs and multipliers were "not
there"...N6MU's QSO and multiplier totals drop by a total of 192 and 48,
respectively, leaving 802 Qs and 175 Multipliers...but QSO points drop by
768 for a revised score of 266,000 for N6MU...that's a drop of ALMOST 50% in
score. 64 QSOs were made between the two stations on each of the other 7
bands but it's hard to be certain of how many multipliers were provided by
stations besides the other rover so it should be clear that the ultimate
impact of NOT having the other, similarly equipped Rover travelling the
similar route, would be greater. ON THE OTHER HAND, without the other rover
to work, maybe more time would have been spent on other bands, maybe there
WERE stations that could have been worked on 3456, 5760 and 10G had more
time been available (though it most certainly would NOT have yielded 64 QSOs
x 10 bands).
SO...might the area to address be the SCORING system? This IS a contest and
SCORING IS a part of it. Probably ANY scoring system will have a way to be
"optimized" from the other parameters of the contest and. As Buck, KC2HIZ,
wrote: "The rules are there specifically to be exploited; to find the way to
make the most points." I read some consensus that "quotas" will be
ineffective and, whether my read is accurate or not, I agree with that.
What follows is some analysis of two options that I have seen based on MY
interpretation of them with continued to "picking on" N6MU's June 2006
Results.
#1. - QSOs with Rovers only worth ONE point each (regardless of band).
I remember a proposal to make QSOs with Rovers only worth ONE point each,
regardless of band...THIS is a place where that might level the playing
field a bit. Yes, there are tradeoffs...will a Fixed station work hard to
copy a rover on one of the higher bands in a distant Grid Square, ESPECIALLY
where there is a Fixed station that will probably be (or already was) a LOT
easier to work (and worth FOUR or EIGHT points versus ONE)? Well...a QSO
Point is STILL a QSO Point, the Fixed station will have to make THAT call.
And this WOULD impact Fixed Station Scores as well.
It would certainly have a score impact for a Rover having a lot of Qs with
another Rover (or multiple other rovers)..."picking on" the N6MU score from
June again and going with 640 QSOs being with the other rover (though John
ALSO mentions having worked AL1VE/R)...for 50 and 144, the QSOs are worth
ONE point anyway so no difference...BUT, take away 1 point for 64 QSOs on
each of 222 and 432, 2 points for 64 QSOs on each of 902 and 1296 and 3
points for 64 QSOs on the 4 higher bands (but leaving all the Multipliers
intact), that's a drop of 1152 QSO Points for that, resulting in a score of
253,328 (just over a 50% reduction).
#2. - MY interpretation of what was in one of Frank, K3UHF's
postings..."Another solution is to only count the grid when working a
repeated rover and not the points. This forces other contacts."
This, too, would have an impact. First, it would remove any "advantage" for
a Rover-to-Rover QSOs from jumping around to make ALL SIXTEEN QSO
possibilities on each band at a Grid Corner, THAT sounds like a PLUS to
me...and it WOULD still provide for a way to ease one of my gripes about
being a rover going to less/NON-"active" Grid Squares...many times I've
given OUT a multiplier that I don't GET myself...UNLESS there happens to be
another Rover in the area (and I WILL admit that I TOO, have "pack
roved/grid circled" for this reason).
One way to possibly "justify" this in terms of "fairness" is that Fixed
Stations are only in ONE Grid Square so the rover gets only ONE set of QSO
points from working the Fixed Station from each Grid that the Rover visits
BUT, it is possible for the Rover to work another ROVER MULTIPLE times from
each Grid Square that the Rover visits...if the Rover were only allowed to
"claim" one set of contact points (among all the bands) from each different
Grid Square from which the OTHER rover is worked, that limits the scoring
advantage of such behavior.
My interpretation would have the following impact on the N6MU June 2006
score...instead of the QSO counts being "64" for each of the 10 bands with
the other rover, only 16 would count for each band (no change in
Multipliers); that drops the QSO total by 48 per band (480 total) and the
QSO Point total by 1344, yielding 210,512 as the score (close to a 60%
reduction).
To me, these are the types of things that seem workable, and there are
probably ways to EXPLOIT these that I have not thought of.
I AM aware that there is a potential inequality for "casual" Rover-to-Rover
QSOs in the second example where one rover operates as a "stop and shoot",
staying in the same Grid Square for a longer period than a "run and gun"
type rover who was moving quickly through different grids and happened to
encounter each other within radio range...the "run and gun" rover has no
incentive to work the "stop and shoot" rover more than once but the "stop
and shoot" could get credit for each QSO and, potentially, the multipliers,
from the "run and gun" rover...hopefully the Rovers could work that out in
the spirit of fairness and in support of radio "sport" even though they are
competitors.
Thanks for the bandwidth (and especially to anyone who has read THIS far).
Hopefully "we" can spur some discussion/come up with some ideas that can
produce positive changes acceptable for our community.
73, JK
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|