Hang on. As one of the "Non Rover" commenters on the eHam.net posting - I
think it necessary to point a couple things out:
1) I agree with you, things aren't as broken as some are making it out to
be.
2) Non-Rovers have JUST as much say about VHF+ contesting as the rest.
3) As rovers are a large part of my "Non Rover" score, I have a vested
interest in the outcome of these discussions and proposals.
I'm not sure where you were heading with that statement, John. Because I've
not roved myself, it sounds like you're equating that with not knowing what
I'm talking about. If I'm overreacting - whoops - I'm guilty. However, if
I'm right -I think you need to reflect on that a bit longer before making
that statement.
Without home stations, multiops, hilltoppers - the need for rovers becomes
considerably less. It's a symbiotic relationship. What's best for roving
ultimately is best for VHF+ contesting. Therefore, any discussion about
roving IS a discussion about VHF+ Contesting, and all opinions matter.
-Mark, K2AXX
-----Original Message-----
From: John K9IJ [mailto:k9ij@vx5.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:44 PM
To: Dan Evans; VHFcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Preventing grid circling.
At 11:58 AM 2/26/2004 -0500, Dan Evans wrote:
>I wouldn't want to place a limit on the time a Rover has to wait before
>leaving a grid. That would be to restrictive on normal Roving.
It sure would.
> some lines deleted
>I know there are a lot of Rovers that would object to this because it is
>still restrictive of normal Rovers. For example, when I travel up I465
>through Indianapolis I pass from EM69 into EM79 and back again within a few
>miles as the road curves across the grid boundary. I usually try to pick
up
>some contacts on 2m FM while going through the different grids. The
>re-entry rule would prevent me from working some of them. So this is not a
>perfect solution, but it seems to be the LEAST restrictive. And I'm afraid
>if we want to come up with a hard and fast rule to prevent grid circling,
>then we are likely to have endure some restrictions. If someone would can
>come up with better solution, I would certainly like to see it. Or do we
>need a solution? Rovers?
I don't think we need a 'solution'. I went back and re-read the comments on
eHam
from the original article. Of all the comments there were only negative
comments
from a couple of people - both NON ROVERS.
I don't see any ROVERS complaining much.
This has all been hashed out ad-nauseam repeatedly over the years. It
resulted
in a rules change, once, which resulted at that time in a big reduction in
rovers in
the field. We're just, now, getting back to a point where there are a
growing number
of rovers participating in every contest. This helps everybody. Let's not
screw it up
again.
John - K9IJ
-
John Rice K9IJ
k9ij@vx5.com
Webmaster, Network Admin, Janitor
http://www.k9ij.com
http://www.suhfars.org
http://www.vx5.com/~teampf
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|