With the best of intentions, the 30/50 proposal misses the mark on many levels.
I'll start by re-asking, "As regard to CQ and ARRL VHF contests, no other class
is artificially limited to the number of QSO's they may log, why must Rovers
be?"
--- On Tue, 2/17/09, frank bechdoldt <k3uhf@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The programs will have to be changed to flag QSO number 31
> so it is not logged, or better yet QSO 30 so you don't
> opperate again.
And the paper loggers?
Maybe rovers simply "log everything and let the Log-robot sort it out later"?
There won't be much happiness, when the robot 0-points contacts that exceeded
the limit, yet consumed a considerable amount of time, effort and skill to
make. They are real contacts, after all...they simply exceeded some arbitrary
and artificial limit.
As for the % thing. If the "right" limit is N% then why is the "wrong" limit
N+10% or N-10%?
> So in the end it may breed some circling like habbits.
What is gained by 30/50 scoring, then?
> I know it sounds hard, but if you work 500 non roving
> contacts, you can work any one rover up to 50 times. So the
> more people you share your contacts with, the more you can
> benifit from a chance encounter with another station.
Does the 30/50 rule apply to all QSO's logged or does it apply on a
band-by-band basis? The answer matters.
> This system would also ensure that you do not become an
> acidental unlimited rover.
If one can "accidentally" become another class of entry...then the
Rover-category classifications are broken, too.
Ev, W2EV
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|