On May 28, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Steve Clifford wrote:
> 5. Many on this reflector seem to be arguing against current
> reality. We
> keep hearing from the same few guys about winning roving strategies
> and
> denial of circling. What they always fail to note is that Unlimited
> Rover
> exists for a reason. They never address that reason, nor the reason
> classic
> and Limited exist. I would love to hear one of these guys explain why
> Unlimited exists. Who should be in that category? What sets that
> category
> apart from the other two? Why was it set apart from the other two
> in the
> first place?
>
> 6. I'm going to start lobbying to have single op and multi-op
> categories
> combined. If its OK for multi-op rovers to compete against single
> rovers,
> why should it be any different for fixed stations? After all, its
> just
> about a winning strategy, right? Winners work together in groups...
> or so
> I've heard.
Steve,
It sounds like you may have taken some of my comments out of the
context of the CURRENT rules. I'm actually arguing REALITY. Not
against it.
If ARRL wants to add a real multi-op/team Rover category and figure
out a way to make it stick, to separate the teams from the individual
efforts, that'd certainly be useful in the current mess.
The comments I've made about "pack" roving being a winning strategy
were meant to be read with the additional (maybe not obvious) comment
attached:
"... under the currently published rules."
Anyone not seriously considering pack roving under the current rules
-- will lose to the Californians or any other team effort. I state
this colloquially as "DO THE MATH".
I'm sticking to that opinion until there's a true multi-op/team roving
category. Some people are complaining about this, I'm not... I'm
thinking more along the lines, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
Too many people are whiny about it... team/pack roving is nothing more
than natural under the current grid-square-and-bands-as-a-multiplier
rules. I say it was INEVITABLE that a group like the California group
popped up.
How would one determine that a rover is operating in a pack/group?
Out here... if the very few rovers all contacted each other (we do),
we'd certainly LOOK like a pack in any computer analysis of the
logs... one could also think we were grid-circling if even a few of us
travelled together...
I foresee no "fair" way to determine a real "pack" vs. a bunch of
individuals who just happened to go the same way "round" Denver, in
our current rover environment out here. And that's the realism I
operate under when I think about "is pack roving going away?"... I
say... no it's not, because the folks in charge of the contest are
going to have the exact same problem to solve before they can
realistically create a multi-op/pack rover category.
Thus, logically... they're not going to do either logical option:
1) Ban pack/team roving. 2) Create a new category for it.
#1 requires an adequate detection mechanism, and the closest they
could come was the 100 QSO rover-to-rover limit.
#2 is actually just slightly more workable, if you beg folks to do
what all contesters do... be honest about their category and logs.
The other squirrelly thing that I've pointed out is the last-minute
changes to the rules, every few years right now... a major rule change
to the Limited Rover category only 3 weeks prior to contest? Really?
If someone works on a strategy for next year to try the "if you can't
beat 'em, join 'em" mentality -- will there be a last-minute change
making their gear/setup/strategy that they may have worked on
acquiring and setting up all winter, worthless?
Honestly NONE of the above (nor the debates on this list) diminish the
fun I have out roving or working at the multi-op on contest day. The
only thing that diminishes my fun is dead bands with no one
participating, and lack of personal time to participate in more than
just June.
Mailing lists and the Internet aren't "real life".
Personally, I don't want to rove right now, mostly due to the constant
rules changes trying to adjust for the California group... but NOT
because they're "unbeatable". There's always a top-dog in any
contest... ask the top 5 fixed multi-ops.
But, NOTHING on this list means I won't be doing something on the air
on June contest day! The list is just mental entertainment in-between
contests.
--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
nate@natetech.com
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|