On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:00:12AM -0400, w3sz wrote:
> The captive rover is a mythical beast. ...
>
> I also know the guys who make up W3CCX and W8GP, two other big multi-op
> stations in this part of the country, and while I have not visited their
> multioperator stations, I know them well enough so that I do not believe
> that they have captive rovers either. So I really do not believe that the
> fictitious beast 'captive rover' exists at all.
If captive rovers are "mythical" then explain why the ARRL's recent Ad-Hoc
VHF/UHF Study Committee was tasked with (among other things) "Strengthen
the rules to minimize the rover practices known as grid circling and captive
rovers." The final report (delivered to the ARRL BOD meeting July 16-17,
2004) had this to say on the subject:
"Grid circling is the practice of pairs rovers going to the junction of
4 grid squares and working each other at short distances while moving
through each of the grids. This can mean 16 QSOs per band for 10 or more
bands, and can generate huge scores (millions of points) while not
encouraging contacts with other contest participants. Requiring a minimum
distance for rover QSOs would help to minimize this type of activity. A
captive rover is a station that only (or primarily) works one multi-operator
station during the contest. This may be the norm in less populated areas
of the country because there is little other activity, but in populated
areas it can generate considerable angst among competitors. The practice
that generates the most heat is a rover that only works one multi-op and
does not work others in the area. Many of them never submit logs. Because
the rovers are usually going to rare grids and have microwave equipment
on multiple bands, their efforts can really boost the scores of those
they work. The current rules are fairly weak in their attempt to encourage
rovers to operate in a way that gives a chance to all stations in the area
to work them and should be strengthened."
The Study Committee members were K1KI, W5ZN, N7NG, N0AX, K1JX, K2UA, W3ZZ,
AA7A, KM0T, and N1ND. As from the suggestion of minimum distance rover
QSOs (which has not been implemented in the rules yet) the committee failed
to arrive at a consensus solution to the captive rover problem. But the
committee very clearly identifies that there is a captive rover problem
the deserves correction for the health of the contests.
We have also heard testimony from one of the log checkers, N6TR, that in
his personal opinion these kind of operations both exist and are obvious
for a human looking at the logs to spot. Tree is a member of the CQ Contest
Hall of Fame and lives far away from any of the recent circle rover and
captive rover activities. There should be no reason to doubt him.
> I also know most of the rovers in this part of the country and know that
> they are not captive, and do not avoid working other stations [what a
> ridiculous and demeaning concept]!
Art KY1K has offered eye-witness testimony to the contrary:
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-08/msg00056.html
I don't see how anyone can deny that captive rovers exist.
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|