After drinking my coffee, and giving the issue a bit more thought I tend
to agree with Jon.
>ight 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
My reasoning is pretty simple. I have nothing against grid circling.
If they enjoy it, great! However, I don't think it should be in the
same category as traditional Rovers. I am also quite sure this is why
the powers that be created the new Unlimited Rover class, just so they
could enjoy their activities without discouraging traditional Rovers.
It would seem necessary to rewrite the rules to prevent grid circling in
the Limited Rover and Rover categories. There have been several
proposed changes to "fix the problem", however I see Jon's as the least
intrusive.
In his adjustment a), I believe the original intent was a class for
stations with only the "bottom 4" bands. I know there is commercial
equipment easily available that includes 1296, so it would seem logical
to let the operator choose the forth band. However, I would add the
forth band should be 222, 902/3, or 1296 specifically. I don't think we
should have the option of including microwave bands in the Limited Rover
class. Leave that to Rover, and of course Unlimited.
In b), restricting the QSO's with a given Rover to 16 for Limited, and
40 for Rover would seem more logical. 16 would allow a 4 band limited
Rover to work the other Rover in 4 grids, and 40 would allow a typical
10 band Rover to work through 4 grids. This would allow for most chance
encounters, but if you happen on the same Rover again, you are out of
luck. I would also suggest logging all QSO's, but scoring any above the
16 or 40 limit as zero points, and no penalties. This way a Limited
Rover could still give a Classic, or Unlimited Rover his points and
mults.
By the way, I don't like this rule because it "could" restrict the
operations of "non circling" Rovers, but all the other changes seem to
be too radical to be widely accepted. Distance scoring, for example,
would work but would likely stir up more contrivursey than grid
circling. I would like to try it sometime, but many Rovers have
equipped their stations to lots of QSO's over short distances while
traveling through lots of grids. My station is equipped to work long
distances from just a few grids. So distance scoring would give me an
advantage, but would hurt the "run and gun" style Rover. I would like
to try it, but we would likely need to create a new contest, or sprint,
to implement it.
OK, I think I'm done for this go around. See you all again in six months:-)
73
Dan
--
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
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
|