Some, including rovers who I really respect, apparently haven't thought through the many varied ways that rovers operate before proposing to limit rover-to-rover Qs from the old unlimited level to th
Mike, I see and understand your point, but I think the CA group has shown that they can't be trusted with a long leash. I'm also a solo rover but as Limited one meaning I only have 4 bands. The chanc
Under no circumstances is placing a limit on contestant-to-contestant QSO's in the best interest of a VHF contest. Participants should be *encouraged* to make contacts, not required to limit them. Ag
Hello all, My rover runs usually entail hitting the shore grids around Lake Ontario, and sometimes EN93/94 and/or FN25. We start either in the EN's, or in FN04 north of the lake, running up to 12 ban
It is with a healthy dose of admiration for your efforts that I comment on the points that you bring up, Greg. Said simply...you follow the strategies that you do, because of how the rules are presen
Didn't the scoring system used to be like that? That in every grid a rover worked from, every grid they worked to was a new multiplier. The scores were huge - and those huge scores contributed to clu
No. There was always an "incentive" quotient at play. The 30/50 thing is too difficult for most people to abide by. Why are you resistant to the above proposal? It's simple to implement and abide by.
Look Ev, the 'once and once only' grid rule you seem to be in love with is not going to be acceptable to most rovers .. if roads all ran N-S or E-W it wouldn't be such a problem, but as people have s
Not at all, John. You find the best location in a Grid-4 and operate. When you're done...you're done. Move on to the best location in the next Grid-4 and operate there. (uh-oh...one more rule needed:
Your first proposed rule doesn't do anythi8ng to address the Lunchbox Brigade. It would leave them totally unaffected and I'm not sure what the goal is with this. So what if you start fresh at each n
What is it you're trying to fix with this proposed rule? I honestly don't get it. It makes no sense. Steve _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@con
Simple sure ... elegant ... not really. If I were to leave say going north and run through the eastern side of one grid and come back on a different highway the following day, presuming a two day run
Hi Steve, To your point... The point is actually quite straight forward, though I may have not been as clear in making it as I'd hoped. It is this: The three simple rules that I proposed will align t
Well, I appreciate the efforts, but I don't see how they do any of that. As a rover, I'm sure you are aware that we generally don't have the same incentives as base stations. Our operating conditions
Hi Mike, To your point... The underlying issue is that Rover-class participants are allowed liberties that no other class of participant enjoys. It is the depth of that disparity that results in thes
<tongue-in-cheek> Let's give non-Rovers this same ability, then. Say...QRP Portable, for instance. One needs only 4 lunchbox operators to meet the QRP Portable station at each corner of the "home" Gr
That tongue in cheek proposal makes absolutely no sense. None. However, you do come to the exact same conclusion a lot of us have about the lunchbox brigade. They are working the system, rather than
-- Steve, I feared that my attempt at making a point through irony would get lost along the way. I'll boil it down and move on... Rovers should be scored (and categorized, btw) the same way that ever
First of all, why on earth do we have a hard and fast 100 or 30 QSO rule when rovers can have different numbers of bands? A 30 QSO rule affects a 10-band rover more than it would a 4-band rover. If a
I also think the end result of these rules would make a 2.3 GHz and up Limited Rover ineffective as well, so it would eliminate the need to restrict Limited Rovers to certain bands. If Limited Rover