> > The truth is, they WANT to work you...but you don't make it very easy
> > for them to. If they are "captive", then they are "captivated by the
> > professionalism and ease of working" megamultiops.
> But Ev, isn't this the whole point of contention in this discussion? IE if
> people believed the "captive" rovers wanted to work other stations this
> discussion would not be taking up all the bandwidth.
The problem is that we never blame ourselves for our own shortcomings. In this
case Rovers really DO want to work other stations...but those other stations
don't make it very easy to do so. Here's an example:
A rover has a finite amount of time to work from a grid. They want to maximize
their own score (it's a contest, not a public service <g>). They can either
concentrate on the callsigns of stations in good locations with high power and
good antennas along with proven operator skill, or "joe ham" with a multimode
who couldn't use CW on 1296 MHz if his life depended on it. "joe ham" loses.
Now...suppose there is such a thing as a "captive rover", sponsored by a "mother
ship". A well prepared non-mothership operator can develop the skill to
coat-tail the mothership's qso's. As long as they don't slow things down along
the way...the Rover will log them too. BUT...if they DO slow things down along
the way, they'll be left in the dust. Why? Because their operating skill can't
keep up, not because of "captivity" issues.
Ahhh, but you don't believe me, do you? Try this angle: a mothership sponsored
captive rover isn't competing against the people who complain about captive
rovers (mostly single ops). They have nothing to lose by you working "their
rover"...UNLESS you slow them down (and that comes back to developing the skills
and station that makes it easy for you to captivate a rover yourself).
Again, though...none of these factors translate into the log that the ARRL gets.
There is real truth here. Give it a chance to sink in.
Kind regards,
Ev Tupis, W2EV
|