Hi Jon,
These are very good points. But, unless I missed something, plenty of
people are winning Sections, Divsions, etc while some are placing at the top
nationally with a new technique. So, their is still plenty of room for
very nice wallpaper.
Hey, I'm all for a rule change if it's really necessary. Maybe all you
rovers think that grid circling to generate big scores will "sweep the
nation." Well, I dare say, to do it on enough bands takes a hell of a lot
of work.
Oh, and note I don't rove. I operate at W2SZ/1, a big multiop, where we
benefit from all the rover contacts. So, I want to rover community to grow!
My concern is not specifically about rovers. It's more about the attitude
that "the sky is falling". It's not. There are plenty of opportunities
for rovers.
I'm chewing up too much bandwidth on this subject... I'll let you guys
continue.
I do see where your coming from, I do. I am sure the CAC boys are watching
this thread, and, if necessary, will take appropriate action, for the right
reasons.
73, Gerry W1VE
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM, <jcplatt1@mmm.com> wrote:
> "Should I be punished or excluded or treated like a leper because I figured
> out a way to Make Big Scores?"
>
> Hi Gerry. I don't think anyone is going to "punish or exclude". No way.
> The discussion point here on the rover rules is very specific - that most
> rovers do not want to operate as pack rovers yet if they don't their scores
> will be trounced by those who do, thus its demotivating. Most rovers really
> enjoy roving in the traditional sense and harbor the belief that with a
> good station, a good effort, and some luck that they could win their
> Section, Division, or even place nationally. Going up against a pack rover
> takes that belief away.
>
> So, can the rover rules be constructed so that those who have fun roving
> without a pack can compete with other like minded rovers while still
> allowing those who do enjoying roving with a pack to play too .. the
> win-win ? The "new" rover rules were created in just such a spirit, and
> even included a new category, the Limited Rover, to attract even more
> rovers to the fun that we have. It was not expected that this class would
> fall game to a four band uW rover running with a rover pack .... yes,
> entirely within the rules but certainly not the design intent. Contesting
> is more that gaming the rules.
>
> I continue to watch the discussion here and ponder like all of us as to
> what to do. We can do nothing, we can go in are totally rewrite the rules
> (yuck), or we can make a minor adjustment that is within the spirit of the
> original design intent and that could be supported by all, or at least the
> majority, of rovers.
>
> Right now my thinking is to do nothing at all OR to make a minor
> adjustment. The minor adjustment is to
> a) define a Limited Rover as 6, 2, 432 and one other band of their
> choosing, and
> b) decrease the number of rover to any one other rover QSOs from 100 to a
> much lower number, perhaps 10, perhaps 30.
> Discussion is good. Please use the "Rover" title so that those fixed
> stations who don't have a dog in this fight can delete them.
>
> 73, Jon
> W0ZQ/R
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|