The intent of the limited rover was to give a newbie a chance to play along and
compete. Thats why its 4 bands. A guy could do it with a IC 706 and a 222 fm
rig. I posted 30,000 points like this on my first rove. Oddly enough last year
I posted less with 7 bands. the difference was less turn out. Its too bad that
this new catagory intended for newbies was hi jacked by a team effort.>
Subject: RE: [VHFcontesting] wb8wsf's question> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:20:24
-0400> From: jshupienis@ccac.edu> To: k3uhf@hotmail.com;
vhfcontesting@contesting.com> > > As a relative newcomer, I've been just
sitting back and reading this thread.> > It's time to voice my opinion, so here
goes.> > * 1 hour from first QSO in a grid to the first QSO in the next grid.
Yes. (Precedent: ARRL General Contest rule 3.15)> * 6-digit grid square. Maybe.
Kind of hard to do without a new GPS for roving while in motion.> * Limits to
rover-to-rover contacts. Undecided. Doesn't affect small-fry like me. Seem
s like it was easily circumvented by the grid-circlers.> > (SARCASM MODE ON) >
> Why not just outlaw grid-circling, period? Disqualification would be a start.
What does it add to VHF+ contesting? Does it add activity? (None that matters
to ME!)> > Once we've cleared that up, we can move on to captive rovers, and
the stations who "own" them. (They don't give ME any points so no loss to ME!)
Disqualify 'em all!> > Next, let's get rid of those rovers who make mistakes,
log dupes, whine on this reflector... Disqualified, disqualified, DISQUALIFIED!
... Oh wait! I'M one of them! Oh Nooooooooo!> > (/SARCASM)> > The bottom line
is, we have to draw the line somewhere. But it should be clear, accomplish a
specific purpose and fit in with the spirit of the contest. And let's keep it
simple. Obviously the Rover rule changes didn't stop the grid-circlers from
spoiling other peoples fun.> > Maybe we should say what we mean, and mean what
we say. For example: "The new ROVER-TEAM category
is for grid-circling groups and captive rovers only. The aggregate score for
the entire team will be accepted as a single entry. Individual scores from team
members will not be accepted in this or any category."> > I think that would
give them all a place to play, and could foster some competition among those so
inclined. It would let the rest of us do ROVER, ROVER-LIMITED and
ROVER-UNLIMITED on a truly competitive basis.> > Speaking of... Maybe we really
don't need three (or four) types of rover categories. Many other contests get
by with few categories, and we could say: ROVER and ROVER-UNLIMITED. If you use
any of: high power (as currently defined), more than 4 bands, more than 2
operators, you become UNLIMITED.> > Most importantly, a consensus among us all
is difficult to achieve but necessary before fiddling with the rules any more.
They are too convoluted as it is.> > -----Original Message-----> From: frank
bechdoldt [mailto:k3uhf@hotmail.com]> Sent: Sun 7/27/2008 8:46
PM> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.commit to > Subject: [VHFcontesting]
wb8wsf's question> > > Steve asked what would I do.> > Ive been vocal on this
about 5 or 6 years.> Had some good ideas and some lame ones.> You could find
some of them in the past postings back to 2003 or so.> > I think I'm better
educated on thisngs than before. At first I wanted team roving banned. But they
do spur some activity. > > I am quite firm in the idea that team roving should
be in its own catagory.> It was the intent of the Arrl to encourage people who
team rove to submit their logs in this catagory. However intent and encorage
does not work with strong willed individuals.
_________________________________________________________________
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|