Well, I appreciate the efforts, but I don't see how they do any of that. As
a rover, I'm sure you are aware that we generally don't have the same
incentives as base stations. Our operating conditions are very different.
What is not different is that multi-op stations operate on a different plane
of existence as single operators. With rovers, its been difficult to define
what is a multi-op group and what is a single station. That's why the
VUAC's solution seems so simple and brilliant to me. It defines that
distinction.
What the proposed rules do not do is limit anything. It simply defines
"Unlimited" in a way that keeps the multi-op guys from being in the same
group as the rest of us. Rather than limiting routes, defining operating
plans or requiring new scoring systems, the VUAC just said if you make more
than 30 contacts with another single rover or if more than 50% of your total
contacts are with rovers in general, you are defined as a multi-operator
rover and you'll be scored against similar stations.
The next time you rove, I'll bet you end up appreciating the sheer
simplicity of the new VUAC proposed rules. I'll also be that you'll be glad
you don't have to select one single operating location per grid nor that
you'll have to ignore stations that you hear while driving through a grid
you have already activated.
73
Steve
K4GUN/R
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> To your point...
>
> > Your first proposed rule doesn't do anythi8ng to address
> > the Lunchbox Brigade. It would leave them totally unaffected and
> > I'm not sure what the goal is with this. So what if you start
> > fresh at each new grid?
>
> The point is actually quite straight forward, though I may have not been as
> clear in making it as I'd hoped. It is this: The three simple rules that I
> proposed will align the Rover category's incentives to those of all other
> participants in an ARRL contest...leaving them with the same "un-level
> playing field" that everyone else has.
>
> This proposal is not a "silver bullet" to cure all of the ills of VHF
> contesting. It is simply a method of re-aligning the Rover class with
> everyone else.
>
> We'll still have "lunchbox", "captive" and "captivated" rovers. We'll
> still have multi-ops with a full library of 10-, 24-GHz "garage door opener
> transceivers" and LASER pens to loan out to anyone who wants to stop by.
> We'll still have (fill in the blank).
>
> What the proposal does, though...is *not* limit the number of
> rover-to-rover QSO's, *allow* pack-roving and it *does* encourage rovers to
> establish stations that can be heard by (and worked by) other classes of
> entrants.
>
> Ev, W2EV
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|