Bob:
> I am getting very tired of this discussion too, but I'm tired of the lack of
> understanding of and continued denial of what the problem is.
Precisely. Let us fix that.
> >From the ARRL June VHF rules:
>
> ** 7.3. Multi-operator stations may not include QSOs with their own
> operators except on frequencies higher than 2.3 GHz. Even then, a complete,
> different station (transmitter, receiver and antenna) must exist for each
> QSO made under these conditions.
> (So, the qsos made with these captive rover stations above 2.3G might be
> within the rules - maybe.)
A station 'operator' is a licensed amateur who keys a
station transmitter in amateur service. No one is asserting that
captive rovers are main station ops (on, say 222) that then go out
and work the main station as a rover in the same contest. Rovers
may indeed be trained by and use equipment loaned by another
station, but they always use their own call sign and never are
operators of that other station.
This is obvious, and your crude misconstruction of the
plain language of the rule is wholly disingenuous and
inflammatory.
> ** 3.7: All transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter
> diameter circle, excluding antennas.
"All transmitters" means what, exactly? Every extant
amateur transmitter? That would make it difficult to work more
than three other grids. No, that means all transmitters operating
under the same callsign. Since rovers do not use the main station
callsign, this plainly does not apply.
> ** 2.3.5.All Rovers are encouraged to adopt operating practices that allow
> as many stations as possible to contact them.
The key word here is "encouraged" which means not
mandatory. Let us say a rover has the choice of taking all day to
hike up and down Mount Marcy to work everyone, or a half day to
hike up half way to work only one or two stations visible to the
Southeast, then go to a birthday party. Are we saying that the rules
must paternalistically force this choice? Work everyone, or stay
out of the contest. No.
So let us clearly state the apparent purpose here. The
shallow, first order objective is to force the rovers who have been
equipped by the big guns to work other stations that do not want
to win enough to go through that effort themselves.
And if that means that the rover has to climb a bigger hill, and thus
work fewer grids, than so be it. If that means the rover has to skip
little Johnny's birthday party, or continue operating in a
thunderstorm, or whatever, in order to avoid even the appearance
of being a captive rover, then so be it. The lazy whiners would
rather warp the rules in their favor rather than play fair. They
would rather hijack someone else's time and money rather then
spend their own.
Keep firmly in mind that the only reason there are not
enough 'captive' rovers to work every station that wants to work
them is that the 'want' is not anywhere near sufficient to result in
actual amateur activity -- building stations and training ops.
Unfortunately, the 'want' is enough, however, to push vacuous bits
around the Internet. These people would rather sit here on this off-
the-bands mailing list and yammer that people who train and build
rovers are not hams. BS. Look in the mirror.
So now let us consider the second order effect: what next?
Let us say we somehow ban captive rovers -- not that anyone has
devised a practicable scheme to do so. What effect will this have
on contest participation?
First, the motive for the big guns to build and train rovers
will be greatly diminished, as more effort will be expended for less
reward, therefore less rover construction. Further, some rovers
will be forced by the rules to a level a participation they are not
willing to make, and thus drop out. After all, the rules presently
"encourage" non-captive rovers. That there are rovers that meet
someone's definition of captive, it is because they voluntarily wish
to contest that way. Sure, the rovers who remain may then
grudgingly make a few more contacts with the complainers on this
list, but that is not going to change the result in any appreciable
way.
How about a plan B? Let us stop wasting our time belly-
aching on this silly mailing list. Heat up your soldering iron, and
build some radios. Get off the fool computer, go to a club meeting
and give a presentation on VHF/UHF contesting. Recruit some
hams who have never been off 2.45GHz, and introduce them to
some real microwaves.
Unless someone can logically show that somehow
discouraging contest participation by banning "captive" rovers can
paradoxically increase overall contest participation, this whole
"captive rover" discussion is pointless waste of time.
Best regards - Dave KD3NC
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|