Duffy -
I haven't done a lot of research, but then again nobody has ever provided
and authoritative answer.
I think the multi-entry rule has been around longer than rovers. My own
guess is that way, way back (60s?) there were single band entries, as well as
multiband entries. They did not want someone operating multiband and then
submitting multiple entries to win multiple single band awards.
The problem with the one-transmitter/call rule is that the person who
benefits - the big gun who these guys work - is not subject to the rule. The
guys who would violate the rule to provide the manufactured qsos are not
going to submit a log anyway, so they are not affected. Unless log checking
is going to catch such qsos, if they indeed exist, the present rule does
little to stop manufactured qsos.
Meanwhile it would be fun to fire up Sunday evening with a new call, and
work again all those guys I had worked earlier in the contest. And since a
fundamental law of contesting is "activity begets activity", having new guys
to work later in the contest may well have benefits beyond just the
activity generated by those new guys.
I think a rule such as "once a new call has been used from a given
location, any previously used call may not make any further qsos" would be the
way
to go.
73 - Jim K8MR
In a message dated 3/4/2010 12:21:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jamesduffey@comcast.net writes:
Jim - I agree with you that General Rule 1.3 stifles a lot of activity. In
addition to precluding effective mentoring of newcomers, it also prevents
rovers from submitting a fixed or QRP portable entry in addition to the
rover entry when they stop overnight, and it also prevents an easy way to get
those capable VHF stations that are not being used in the contest on the
air.
I suspect that this rule came about as a consequence of two events. The
first is that between the times the QRP Portable category was instituted and
before the Rover Category was instituted it was commonplace for QRP Portable
stations to act like present day rovers, operating from several grids
during a contest and submitting logs from each grid they operated in. This
resulted in the same person winning the QRP Portable Category in multiple
sections, having the top 2 or 3 scores in a section, regardless of class, and
in at least one occasion, a single station appearing twice in the top ten
list. I think the multiple entry rule was instituted about the same time the
rover class was started. Although I do not see anything wrong with this
practice, some felt it was an abuse of the system and one of the faults that
the rover class was supposed to cure.
The second event, I suspect is that some clubs were using multiple entries
from the same operator to boost their score. So, if several big guns in a
club got together for a multi effort their stations would sit idle. Why not
get someone who is a good op to go around and operate their stations in
rotation, put them on the air and make some more points for the club? I don't
see anything wrong with this practice either, as long as the idle stations
being put on the air worked lots of stations outside the club.
As you say, while not exactly commonplace, this is done on HF,
particularly in Sweepstakes where once the majority of sections, or all the
sections
are worked then one can contribute to a club score more effectively by
putting another station on the air rather than to continue to accumulate
additional QSOs with no more mults.
Rule 1.2 was certainly instituted to prevent manufactured contacts and I
agree, if one could separate the QSOs one gets from tutoring newcomers from
those made to manufacture QSOs it would be good, but I don't quite see how
to do this.
In politics when encountering something bizarre, the common saying is to
"follow the money". In VHF contesting it seems to be "follow the club
competitions". :^)= - Duffey=
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|