OK, but by that logic, Unlimited Multi-Op is a "pointless" category as well.
It would mean that there should not even be different categories. Is that
really what we want? After all, why should high power stations be forced to
only be matched against similar stations? Same with multi-op groups. After
all, its not about making categories just so more people can win, right?
The fact of the matter is, Unlimited Rover exists, as does Limited and
Classic. That decision has already been made. What is left to consider is how
best to differentiate them.
I think part of the problem is that for some reason, Unlimited Rover seems to
be viewed as punishment. Look at how few logs were submitted in June and
September. Why is that? Grid circlers and even Pack Rovers should view this
is an opportunity to match up plans and stations. That's not what's happening
and I don't quite get why.
Steve
K4GUN/R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Hull" <gerry@w1ve.com>
To: k4gun@comcast.net
Cc: aa5jg@yahoo.com, vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:57:00 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] QST_ June contest write up
Hey Steve,
As explained in a previous email, usually a category exists because enough
people complained that they could never win a particular category. So a new
one is created. There used to be only one fixed-station multiop category. In
fact, we used to use States instead
Contests, especially in the V-U-uW spectrum, should only have rule changes to
enhance activity on the bands. Rules to level the geographic playing field,
or to level a perceived "have" and "have not" inequality, are pointless in my
book.
I have no specific comment on the particular Unlimited Rover issue, as all my
experience is in Unlimited Multi-Op.
73,
Gerry, W1VE
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM, < k4gun@comcast.net > wrote:
Nope. You didn't. You just used a passive/aggressive tactic to indict anybody
who thinks there is a problem with the current set of rules. I started a new
discussion based upon your post asking for those who don't see the problem to
explain why Unlimited Rover exists and how the grid circling group fits into
that program. Do you have anything constructive to add to that discussion?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Hull" < gerry@w1ve.com >
To: k4gun@comcast.net
Cc: aa5jg@yahoo.com , vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:59:01 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] QST_ June contest write up
Hmmmm... Did I mention you? Ever hear the phrase "a guilty conscience needs
no accuser" ?
73, Gerry
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM, < k4gun@comcast.net > wrote:
Wait a second! That's not the case. Not at all. There are some of us who
would like to see further changes and have made respectful and cogent arguments
as to why we feel that way. There's no bickering and finger pointing. Its an
honest effort to improve the contest that we all seem to rather enjoy. Why is
that such a problem?
Steve
K4GUN/R
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Geiger" < aa5jg@yahoo.com >
To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com , "Gerry Hull" < gerry@w1ve.com >
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:26:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] QST_ June contest write up
I couldn't agree more. The way I see it, the complainers should have 2 main
options:
1. Make up their own contest and set the rules however they want them.
2. Get on the VUAC committee themselves and then change the rules.
It seems that most of the complaining comes of the sort: "KA1XYZ won the
contest and I should have instead."
73s John AA5JG
--- On Thu, 11/20/08, Gerry Hull < gerry@w1ve.com > wrote:
> From: Gerry Hull < gerry@w1ve.com >
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] QST_ June contest write up
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 1:17 PM
> <flack jacket on>
>
> I've participated in all the major VHF non-winter
> contests for almost 30
> years now. Before grid squares. After grid squares.
> Before the new rover
> rules. After the new rover rules.
>
> The theme among complainers about winners is "those
> winners must be
> cheating".
>
> Well, no sir, time and time again it's been proven they
> have not been
> cheating. No matter who it is, no matter what they are
> doing.
>
> "Well, they push the rules to the LIMIT"
>
> Isn't this a COMPETITION?
>
> "They do the same, mundane stuff every year."
>
> "They do it on high microwaves" (Um, more
> points-per-Q?)
>
> "They do it with custom gear and frequencies"
>
> "They only work their buddies!"
>
> "They buy all their gear -- they are buying the
> contest!"
>
> ALL within the rules.
>
> If you look at the rules over the past 30 years, once
> enough people
> bellyache about the same winners, and their is enough
> political pressure,
> the rules get changed... And, those same top operators
> and competitors
> adapt And they win under the new rules.
>
> The League and the CAC has done a great job in adapting the
> rules to make
> VHF contesting interesting for everybody.
>
> If you're in the game to only WIN, you going to
> disappoint yourself a good
> portion of the time. I've luckily participated with a
> group who
> have won quite a few times -- but also have had our butts
> whipped by
> others. As the rules change, adoptions are made.
>
> I don't rove. I know a lot of people that do. I come
> from an unlimited
> multiop perspective.
>
> Ask K8GP if building and testing all the gear, driving a
> long way, setting
> up and operating in sometimes very harsh conditions is
> always fun? I bet
> they think so -- maybe not always -- but they come back
> (almost) every
> year. They are skilled operators with great tactical
> strategy and do very
> well.
>
> Ask my friends as W2SZ if maintaining gear over 30 years or
> putting up 10+
> guyed towers on a mountain top (sometimes in very bad
> weather) twice a year
> or driving 1000s of non-contest miles scouting excellent
> locations for DX
> uWave, or rounding up enough people to "make" it
> happen. At times, it's
> REALLY HARD. Doing something difficult, and working as a
> team, pays off.
> Even when we loose,
> we are motivated to keep going. If the rules change, we
> adopt.
>
> Ask K1WHS and his team why he keeps plugging at it (and
> catching us all
> FAST!). Dave's built an incredible station over the
> years -- and it's not
> always about winning.
>
> If some rovers have a strategy of only working their
> friends -- perhaps it's
> because their friends have a winning strategy. Rather
> than complaining
> and spreading innuendo in a public forum -- why not embrace
> them and find
> out how you might participate in that winning strategy
> also. You can
> learn much from winners. If you perceive a real issue
> with the rules,
> contact your CAC member -- don't knock someone who has
> used a strategy which
> maximizes score based on the fules.
>
> </flack jacket on>
>
> I AM in favor of public logs, as I believe that MANY can
> learn from the
> techniques of others. I doubt you'll find any
> cheaters in public logs.
>
> These are my opinions and not necessarily those of my VHF
> Contesting buddies
> at W2SZ FN32jp
>
> 73, Gerry W1VE
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|