I find it funny that Ev is so fixated on trying to get rovers to operate
like fixed stations do. None of his suggestions have anything to do with
making rovers operate in a way that ensures both competitiveness and
maximizing the number of contacts made with outside stations. They all have
to do with pretending that rovers and fixed stations are handled the same
with regard to scoring and operating practices.
Steve
K4GUN/R
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Mike (KA5CVH) Urich <ka5cvh@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 15:12, Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A single grid touches 8 others (for a total of 9). If I could move
> within a grid, I could "game" the system by travelling around a grid's
> perimeter, working "lunchbox" rovers. The result is that there would be a
> reward for not really contacting lots of other stations. Again...no other
> class of operation can do this. Neither should Rovers be able to.
>
> Mike asks
>
> And why not ... I think the rules are quite simple the way they are.
> It should not matter where in the grid I am at or ... how many times I
> may move within the grid. As long as I'm in this grid and you are in
> that grid its a "Q". Besides a grid only has four corners. And
> unless I told you how would you know what part of the grid I was in
> since I only have to report four characters not six. Even still I
> could pick a six character sub that is in the middle of the grid and
> you'd probably never know.
>
> To be quite honest, Ev, I think your proposal is preposterous. While
> I respect that you have far more experience at roving since I've only
> "played" at roving a few times and its been a number of years since.
> I have not roved because of other commitments those week-ends in a
> long time but it is something I would like to get back into. This
> proposal in my opinion would potentially punish me as much as those
> you are trying to. I am still convinced the way to handle this is
> with class's and not some asinine 30/50 rule or only activate each
> grid one time or other such nonsense. What's the next progression ...
> to prohibit you from working any other rover more than once or twice?
>
> --
> Mike Urich, KA5CVH
> http://ka5cvh.com
>
> If pro is opposite of con.
> Then what is the opposite of progress?
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|