But there would still be times when it would be pointless to work a rover. If
I work WF5VHF/R on 2 meters in EM05, and then he goes to EM15, there would be
no reason to work him if I had already worked EM15 on 2 meters. I believe this
would still discourage rover activity.
I am not sure that the VHF contests are broken, so maybe we don't need to fix
them.
73s John NE0P
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK" <k9jk73@msn.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:52:02 -0500
>I agree with John and Tom...as someone who IS fairly active as a rover, I
>would stop roving if ALL QSO points with other rovers were 'set' to be zero.
>
>HOWEVER, if the *first* contact I made on each band with another rover in a
>given grid (*regardless* of >my< grid) got QSO Point credit, but further QSOs
>(as I changed >my< grid) with that same rover in that same given grid got zero
>points (kind of like we only get credit for the *first* time we work a
>multiplier/grid square for each given band), I'd be OK with that. Of course,
>that creates an entirely NEW Grid Circling strategy which can still be done
>for an increase in score (though not as great an increase), but it also
>encourages more time and effort to try and work stations OTHER than a circling
>partner or members of your 'pack'. Admittedly, there would be some situations
>where the OTHER rover would want contacts but I would have no incentive to
>work them and vice versa, but I'd hope that I and the other rover( s) would
>find a way to work that out.
>
>73, JK
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Carney<mailto:tomc7@earthlink.net>
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com<mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:20
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Rule Change Discussion
>
>
> Ditto NE0P's comments.
>
> Most rovers out here are relatively low power, small antenna stations.
> Other than the first 30 minutes of a contest, I virtually never work a rover
> that is in a grid square I need (except for a six meter opening). I would
> have no incentive to work other rover.
>
> 73, Tom K6EU/r
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Geiger (NE0P)" <ne0p@lcisp.com<mailto:ne0p@lcisp.com>>
> To: "'Bob Naumann - W5OV'" <W5OV@W5OV.com<mailto:W5OV@W5OV.com>>;
> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com<mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>>;
> <mclarson@rcc.com<mailto:mclarson@rcc.com>>
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 8:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Rule Change Discussion
>
>
> > IT would also discourage most people from going out roving.
> >
> > 73s John NE0P
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> > From: "Michael J. Clarson" <mclarson@rcc.com<mailto:mclarson@rcc.com>>
> > Reply-To: mclarson@rcc.com<mailto:mclarson@rcc.com>
> > Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:40:09 -0400
> >
> > > Bob: A suggested scoring change (made several weeks ago and did not
> > >generate much in the way of comments, pro or con, which makes me think
> the
> > >real activity for most is complaining, and not the betterment of the
> > >contests) would be to have rover to rover QSO's count ZERO points. You'd
> get
> > >multipliers, but no points. That would sure reduce the circling scores
> and
> > >encourage the working of stations outside the group. --Mike, WV2ZOW
> > >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com<mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting>
>_______________________________________________
>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
|