actually I worked another rover another station 45 times with a combo of 6
bands while never coming within 100 miles of his rover. That being said I
would be happy to limit it to the first 30 contacts and if we were scheming we
would try to ignore each other in grids that are well populated. Other ideas
is mininum distances IE 2 grids away. My recent suggestion to the VUAC is to
actually creat another multiplier. This one would be your traditional final
score multiplied by the number of unique stations you work and this would be
for all rovers if not for everyone. Its the big equalizer and maybe the most
efficent. Then if some could choose working the same guy 100 times vs working
everone else one to 3 times on adverage along with the 100 repeat rule.
Does this re-enforce the concept of more involvement?
From: k6nc@saciplaw.comTo: jamesduffey@comcast.net;
vhfcontesting@contesting.comCC: k3uhf@hotmail.comDate: Thu, 20 Nov 2008
05:17:03 +0000Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] More Roving
James:
We agree with you that the Limited Rover class was not necessarily intended for
beginners, although it does provide an entry level class in terms of
equipment/power limitations. Personally, I really like the Limited Rover class
for those times when I just don't want to (or can't) put the whole system
together for a contest.
One of the most porous holes in the rules, in our opinion, is the ability of
the General Rover class to make up to 100 contacts with another Rover. If this
were restricted to 30-50 contacts, or so, the incentive and the ability to grid
circle in the "gang roving" sense would be significantly limited. This same
limitation should apply to the Limited Rover class, as well. Personally, we
can't think of a single contest where our contacts with another Rover station
have even approached 30 contacts. When you're not traveling together, the
chances of making that many contacts with another Rover (especially out West)
are fairly remote. If you were able to look at the logs of the parties
mentioned in previous postings who "maxed out" their contacts with other
Rovers, it would be interesting to see how many hit 100 contacts with another
Rover.
It's "gang roving" that skews the results so significantly, so that activity
should be available only to the Unlimited class.
On the other hand, we do not believe that restricting the Limited Rover class
in terms of band selection, should be limited in any way. We prefer the lower
bands when we operate fewer bands, but if someone wants to operate up higher,
and still be restricted in power as the rules provide, why not allow it?
73, Mike K6NC and Catherine KG6HXI
-----Original Message-----From: James Duffey
[mailto:jamesduffey@comcast.net]Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 08:29 PMTo:
vhfcontesting@contesting.comCc: 'James Duffey', 'frank bechdoldt'Subject:
[VHFcontesting] More RovingFrank - You wrote: To answer James’s question : The
issue is more the manipulation of the rules and lack of forethought in the
creation of the rules. That being taking something that was meant to encourage
new people to our sport and manipulating it to work as a team to win all three
classes roving. This is like having Bobbie Fisher showing up to the elementary
school chess club and beating all the 8 year old kids in 5 moves and using the
results to declare himself national champ. That being said I’m sure some would
compete in a limited fashion just to see how far they could go, So it needs to
be limited at or below 1.3 ghz. That’s where the commercial stuff is and that
what the class was made for. This would not punish the microwave people. They
are not beginners. The process of healing of ALL contesting will begin with
open logs. I am not sure that the VUAC thought of the limited class exclusively
to attract Joe 706 pack to contesting, but rather to form a class where one
would not need significant resources to compete effectively as a rover. A four
band and a 160 Watt limitation pretty well defines the upper limit of what one
can spend on a rove and still drive around in a street legal vehicle. While I
am sure that the VUAC did not contemplate a limited rover operating solely on
the microwave bands while roving, they did nothing to prevent that in the
rules. Now that has happened they can reconsider hte rule, if it should be
changed and if something should be changed, what. Rules are rules. One either
follows the rules or he disregards them. If one can follow the rules and not
get the expected results then the rules need to be changed. But one should not
blame the one who is following the rules. There are lots of ways to deal with
grid squaring. The current attempt was a good start. It is not perfect, nor did
the VUAC expect it to be. It can be made to work. There are other alternatives.
I outlined some of them in a previous e-mail. No matter what we think of the
present situation, it does no good to complain without suggesting a viable
alternative. Suggesting that someone do something is not very valuable.
Suggesting what specifically they should do is a much more valuable
contribution to the sport. If you don't like the current state of affairs in
roving, suggest specific alternatives that will fix the problem without
introducing new problems. - Duffey -- KK6MC James Duffey Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|