VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

[VHFcontesting] VHF Contest Rules Revisions - Part III

To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] VHF Contest Rules Revisions - Part III
From: callbill@hotmail.com (Bill Olson)
Date: Thu Jun 19 16:44:45 2003
Kevin, You make MANY well thought out points. Thanks for that. I will 
comment on only one, the "Rover" section and only as it applies to 
unlimited-multiop stations, since I have been following the "Captive Rover" 
dialog for quite a while. First of all, at K1WHS, unlimited multiop in 
Maine, we rely on rover stations for a good number of our microwave qso's 
and especially grids. When the Limited Multiop entry class was started, 
microwave activity took a BIG nose dive. i see the rover activity just as a 
way to get some of it back. I don't know if we "sponsor" rovers or not. None 
of the operators at K1WHS own the rover gear, it is owned by the rover 
operators. They are, however, our friends and we do coordinate with them. 
They work stations other than K1WHS. Not many from some of the far northern 
grids, (where in many cases we are the closest station to work within 300 or 
400 miles), but some, so you couldn't really call them "captive". But the 
rovers do make a point of trying to work us on all the bands from each grid 
they activate. My biggest question, and it has been all along, is how can 
this be called (as you do below) "artificial manufacturing of contacts"?? We 
actually work the station and play by the rules. What is artificial about 
that? How could you possibly make a rule that said a 200 mile qso on 24GHz 
where all the information was exchanged, all in real time and all within 
contest rules was illegal? The truth is, if "sponsored" rovers were 
eliminated - or let's say rovers whose "primary objective" is to work one 
particular station were eliminated, it would probably help K1WHS in the 
standings more than hurt since being way out on the edge of the activity 
here in Maine, we just don't have the resources (warm bodies) to put forth 
the effort of some of the other unlimited-multis. But, heck, this is how we 
have fun and it certainly is not hurting the "advancement of the state of 
the art" which is one of the things I thought we were doing here...

Here's another thing. Just the pure existence of the unlimited-multi 
"mountaintop" stations is a benefit to ALL the stations in the contest. We 
are a source of qso's and new grids to lots of stations on ALL the bands. 
But the unlimited multiop is really a dying breed. Very few groups have the 
energy to put out a 10-13 band effort, especially with the 4-band limited 
category. So why would anyone want to make the situation worse by taking 
away even more incentive to get on the microwave bands??

I love contesting and would continue to do it no matter what the rules got 
changed to. I just don't see the argument against "sponsored" (or "captive", 
or whatever you want to call them) rovers and I have no idea how a rule 
change would be enforced anyway.

bill, K1DY FN54jq Maine



>Rovers.  Despite two separate rules changes on the
>rovers in the mid-1990?s, rovers are still having the
>effect of distorting both the unlimited multi category
>and the club competition. The only unlimited multis
>that are now competitive are those with the
>where-with-all to sponsor three, four, or even more
>rovers at a time, all with microwave capabilities. We
>should consider reviewing the rules to prevent the
>artificial manufacturing of contacts by rovers. This
>brings up the old rover debate all over again, and may
>reduce rover activity in any event, so I have mixed
>feelings on the matter. If we prohibit sponsorship by
>the multi?s, are we also to prohibit sponsorship or
>point production by rovers for SO or QRP sponsors?
>How is ?sponsorship? to be defined?

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>