Bob,
I agree with Buck. Buck's assertions are true because
N6NB/R and his friends were operating totally within
the rules of the contest, yet there is still a
controversy.
The fact is that they were acting as individual
stations. Fact is, all rovers do what they did.
Namely, act in concert with all stations that they
work in a deliberate, calculated way. Many rovers
preplan their operations and announce their
itineraries. Moreover, many make skeds with other
stations and preplan their contacts (as do many fixed
stations).
I agree that there should be some consideration given
to creating various rover categories. But my
appreciation of this is that N6NB and his friends were
not operating outside the scope or intent of the
contest rules as written.
I thinks it's kinda sad that Wayne had to come on and
defend himself when he and his friends did nothing
wrong. Wayne has contributed more to VHFing and ham
radio in general than most VHFers realize because they
haven't been around long enough to remember.
Paul, K7CW
--- Bob Naumann - W5OV <W5OV@W5OV.com> wrote:
> Buck,
>
> I disagree with a couple of your statements.
>
> You said: "The CA rovers were not a single contest
> operation - they
> submitted individual logs" and "the simple fact is
> that they are all
> individuals, participating as individual stations".
>
>
> If those assertions were entirely true, there would
> be no controversy.
>
> While they did submit individual logs, your
> conclusion that they were
> individual stations based on that alone is not
> correct.
>
> The fact is that they were not acting as individual
> stations. Truly
> separate rovers would not have done what they did.
> They were in fact acting
> in concert, in a deliberate, calculated, pre-planned
> way which I believe
> does not fit any existing category.
>
> Should there be a category like this? Sure - why
> not? I suggest that it be
> called "Rover Team" or similar with new rules
> defining *what is allowed* in
> that category.
>
> I liken this to someone operating high power in a
> contest that only has
> entry categories for low power or QRP. Sure they
> can operate, and their
> QSOs are good, but they are not competing with the
> people who are operating
> within the limits of the defined categories. This
> just happened last
> weekend in the NAQP CW Contest. Their entry should
> be classified as a check
> log, since their operation does not align with any
> current entry category.
> Clearly, the same applies in this case.
>
> For this and all other contests, I also think that
> the rules need to be
> written from the perspective of what is permitted so
> that it is clear that
> if it ain't in the rules, it ain't allowed. The
> loophole perspective that
> anything that isn't specifically outlawed is OK,
> strikes me as
> unsportsmanlike and should not be encouraged.
>
> You also said: "I never, ever made a random QSO
> above the 70cm band, and
> respectfully submit that physics (i.e. beamwidth)
> demands some amount of
> planning in order to make a successful QSO."
>
> I disagree that you need to plan in advance. I'm
> not saying you can't make
> a sked, or *publicly* publish your operating /
> travel plans.
>
> You further said: If someone can demonstrate how I
> can drive to a random
> hilltop, set my dishes up in random directions and
> elevations, call CQ on
> random frequencies at random times in a VHF contest
> with microwaves
> (microwaves = points) AND increase my score, then
> I'm all ears.
>
> Well, listen here. If you do what you said, you are
> clearly not thinking
> about how to deal with this conundrum.
>
> Answer: It's a VHF contest - use the tools you are
> allowed to use! Common
> practice used to be establishing communication on
> lower bands (like 6m, 2m,
> 432 etc.), then turning your antennas to point at
> the station you want to
> work, and QSYing up to the higher bands form there.
> You can pass along all
> the data you might need to the other station on the
> air during the contest.
> Imagine that - using radio during the contest!
>
> 73,
> Bob W5OV
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Buck Calabro [mailto:kc2hiz@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:26 PM
> To: VHF Contesting
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] How to increase my
> score, or why should I try?
>
> > > Doesn't general contest rule 8 specifically
> allow club competition?
> > > Isn't the point that one wants one's own club to
> win the contest?
> >
> > This has nothing to do with the ARRL Club
> Competition.
> -snip-
> > In both cases, what we have is a single contest
> operation using more
> > than one callsign to make contacts with itself to
> artificially boost
> > its score so that one of its callsigns can be the
> recognized winner of
> > a category in the contest.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
> The club competition
> explicitly recognises that human beings like to help
> others. That we, as
> social folk like to help people we know. That
> altruism is a Good Thing.
>
> The CA rovers were not a single contest operation -
> they submitted
> individual logs. They are friends who activated an
> incredible number of
> grids, put 500+ calls into their logs and also
> worked each other as they
> drove. If anybody else put 500+ calls into the log
> they'd get a slap on the
> back.
>
> The two guys who made 100 less QSOs weren't robotic
> slaves faithfully
> executing the will of 'the master.' The same goes
> for the much maligned
> 'captive rovers.' They aren't mindless drones
> calling home to 'the mother
> ship' milling by the thousands, intent on making
> Mother the sole winner.
>
> No matter how many times they are portrayed this
> way, the simple fact is
> that they are all individuals, participating as
> individual stations. Like
> all contesters they are working the stations that
> are easiest for them to
> work. The undercurrent is that they planned their
> strategy before leaving,
> and that a planned excursion is unsportsmanlike,
> whereas random QSOs are the
> proper way to go about it.
>
> I never, ever made a random QSO above the 70cm band,
> and respectfully submit
> that physics (i.e. beamwidth) demands some amount of
> planning in order to
> make a successful QSO. Location (no trees in THAT
> direction), timing (they
> have to be awake) and pointing (narrow
> beamwidth) are crucial to making a microwave QSO.
>
> If someone can demonstrate how I can drive to a
> random hilltop, set my
> dishes up in random directions and elevations, call
> CQ on random frequencies
> at random times in a VHF contest with microwaves
> (microwaves = points) AND
> increase my score, then I'm all ears.
>
> Respectfully, KC2HIZ/r, Buck
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|