In an attempt to better understand this issue last night, I resorted to making
an eight grid map on the floor, and using Hot Wheels cars to help me visualize
each rover and their movements. I then spent the next few hours figuring out
what it might take to achieve some of the claimed scores. All the while
attempting to explain to my wife why the issue had raised such a fuss. I'm sure
it must have seemed silly to her.
At one point, she asked an obvious question. "Didn't you tell me that there
were only a couple of guys around here who roved at all?" Why do you care?
She's right of course. In our area rovers are few and far between. Like most on
the bands, I'm grateful for them as they activate rare grids, and add a lot to
my VUCC efforts. It's clear that the ARRL and the VUAC recognized their
importance to the VHF community, and created the new Limited Rover category to
encourage more amateurs to try such efforts. We'd all like to see more rovers,
but if they cannot hope to compete, I doubt that we will.
In the March 2008 issue of QST, Gene Zimmerman, W3ZZ, wrote, "It seems to me
that with these revisions, the VUAC has dealt forcefully with many of the
previous problems in the rover class and provided a lot of win-win situations.
Grid circling rovers are a very separate group from other rovers and now
compete in a separate class where they can attempt to maximize their score
without any detrimental effects on other rovers. Most importantly the limited
rover class will provide a competitive outlet for the thousands of IC706/FT-100
owners who currently have only four or fewer bands. This should increase
activity for everyone and eventually some of those limited rovers will move
forward to work other bands as well".
Since I don't recall reading anything from either the ARRL or VUAC
contradicting Gene's assessment of the new rules, I must assume this was indeed
their intent.
It's clear that the VUAC did not foresee the tactics that appear to have been
employed in California. Before we move forward to change the rules to close
this loophole, we need a better way of testing proposed rule changes instead of
waiting for several contest cycles to be completed. Is this even possible? I'm
happy to report that yes, it is.
Our company does a ton of work for the law enforcement community, and I've had
a chance to observe how they approach an element who often employ tactics that
seem difficult or impossible to predict. One creative solution that has been
employed recently is the use of so called "Red Team" exercises. It involves
using your own people to act in the role of your adversary. For instance, a new
method of preventing IED's being smuggled onto an airplane is developed. On
paper, it sounds great---but will it actually work? Is there a tactic that you
haven't foreseen that might circumnavigate your new safeguard? Instead of
waiting to find out, law enforcement will often use their own operators to
pretend to be playing for the other side. They attempt to defeat the safeguard,
using any method that they can think of.
In our case, it would involve this. The VUAC examines the issue, and proposes a
set of rule changes in the same manner as before. The difference is that before
the rules are enacted, they employ a team of volunteers to "red team" the
rules. These volunteers, hopefully all with VHF/UHF contest experience would
look at the proposed rules and attempt to devise strategies that would allow
them to maximize their scores, while staying within the legal limits of the
rules. They are not bound by any sense of the "intent" of the rules, or a code
of conduct, ethical considerations, etc. They are encouraged to be completely
asymmetrical in their approach. "Victory" for them is when they can figure out
a way to defeat the intent of the rules, without violating them.
In this way, the league can begin to stay ahead of the contesters, rather than
constantly being forced to deal with the fallout of unforeseen strategies. I've
personally seen the benefits of this approach as it applies to people who are
not bound by the same cultural, ethical, or legal considerations. If
experienced contesters are utilized as members of the 'red team", I think you'd
be amazed at how effective a few tweaks of the current rules could be.
The "Red Team" exercise has been used successfully by the military, police, and
even business. I can see no reason why it wouldn't be effective for our
purposes as well. Not foolproof certainly, but effective.
I apologize for those who are tired of this thread. Frankly, I think this
reflector is the appropriate forum for such discussions, but I understand that
many feel it has been overstated. As a newcomer to VHF/UHF, I am the least
qualified to suggest changes to the rules, or to judge the participants. What
is clear to me is that the VUAC and the League created the Limited Rover and
Unlimited Rover classes to address the grid circling issue. It's also clear
that some have chosen to ignore the intent of the rules change and focus on the
letter of the law. That's fine if you can sleep at night.
Personally, I would not have participated in such a practice. Victory at any
cost is no victory at all.
73,
Les Rayburn, N1LF
EM63nf
Les Rayburn, director
High Noon Film
100 Centerview Drive Suite 111
Birmingham, AL 35216-3748
205.824.8930
205.824.8960 fax
205.253.4867 cell
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|