Thanks James. I hope I can make clear what my purpose is in making these
comments. I'm still struggling to figure out how to change things. I have
written my VUAC representatives but have received no replies. I assume they
read this reflector so in the absence of a dialogue from them, this seems to
be the best way to debate the issue.
What strikes me as most glaring is that, as Frank has pointed out, there are
two distinct types of roving. One is a solo operation and the other is the
team effort. To me, that looks very similar to how fixed stations are set
up. There are single operator and multi-operator efforts. The ARRL
established distinct and separate rules for each category.
The ARRL also attempted to establish a new category to address the group
effort concept when they created the Unlimited Rover category. The problem
is obviously that the new rules didn't really solve anything. It actually
exacerbated it.
As to the cure, I'm open to suggestions. I wrote to my VUAC rep a few
months back about what I thought would help. I'm not addicted to any single
solution and would not be opposed to a number of ideas. Personally, I'm not
in favor of distance based scoring because I have yet to hear of a solution
that is both easy to understand and is verifiable or enforceable. My mind
could be changed on that.
If I were given the magic wand, my solution would be to limit rover to rover
contacts to 4 for Limited and 10 for Classic rover. I would also limit
Limited Rover to 50, 144 and 432 plus one other band of the operator's
choice. I would not change the scoring for the upper bands. I would not
institute distance requirements. I might even be in favor of allowing
Unlimited to submit for club scores, but I'm not sold on that point yet.
Another idea would be more simple. If a rover has more than 20% of his
contacts with other rovers (any rovers, not just single rovers), they are
moved into Unlimited Rover.
The group rovers are multi-operator stations. Treating them as such should
not be viewed as punishment. I want to encourage them to continue to group,
flourish and advance. I also want groups like W4IY, K8GP, W3SO and others
to flourish and advance as well. I want them all to grow the hobby. I just
want them recognized for what they are and what they are is not the same as
single operator stations.
Steve
K4GUN/R
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:27 PM, James Duffey <JamesDuffey@comcast.net>wrote:
> Steve - You wrote in part:
>
> "I just think the rules need (to be) changed to address that reality."
> OK you want a rule change. That is fair. Think about what rules you
> want changed. It may not be as clear as you think.
> Do you want the grid circlers completely eliminated in the Limited and
> Classic Rover categories?
> Or do you want the rules to place limitations on grid circling so that
> their scores are more competitive with the scores of rovers who do not
> grid circle?
> Or would you like a contest where the scoring is such that grid
> circling is an ineffective strategy?
> Or would you like the limited rover category limited to only four
> specific, stated bands?
> Do you want the extra points for microwave contacts reduced or
> eliminated?
> Think about why you want a rule change. Is it because you are not
> competitive with the grid circlers? I know I am not. If the grid
> circling rovers only made a tenth the points they currently make, but
> could sill grid circle would that make their behavior more accpetable
> to you?
> Formulate a solution. Make sure it will not introduce more problems
> that it will solve. Propose that solution to your ARRL Director, your
> VUAC representative, your CAC representative, and to the Chairman of
> the PSC, Bruce Frahm, K0BJ.
> Simply complaining about a problem will not generally be as effective
> as proposing viable alternatives to those who can affect change.
> Congratulations on your first place Limited Rover finish in the
> September VHF Contest. You put up a very impressive score and one that
> is not trivial to achieve when the band is flat. - Duffey
>
> --
> KK6MC
> James Duffey
> Cedar Crest NM
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|