Bob:
> In response to KD3NC (a past operator at W2SZ):
My position is my own and not at all representative of W2SZ's operators
or
crew.
> First, you don't know me. I am neither lazy, nor a whiner. My
> motivation is to seek to get the rules changed to correctly address the
> issues at hand - period. Sharing my opinion on the reasons why is all
> I'm doing.
Clearly that was not the intent of your previous post, as you quoted
the
existing rules, to wit: "They violate the following rules". You did not propose
any new
language amending the rules to address the issues as you perceive them. If you
want a change, then propose one. You have not.
You appear to be calling on someone else to devise some
new rule language. What am I to think of a person who wants something, and begs
others to do it for him?
It is impossible for a rule to divine the mental state of contest
participants.
Thus, no rule change proposal has been generally accepted. All such proposals
thus
far have had unintended consequences.
> I recognize that something is wrong with the SOP at some multi-ops
> concerning their team members going out and pretending to be
> independent rovers. The same applies to the pack-rover/grid-circlers.
There is no pretending. I was a volunteer "captive" rover builder and
operator by my own choice and I enjoyed it. I was not bound by any exclusive
contract or any other such nonsense. I worked who I pleased. What is wrong with
that? I learned something about microwave DX that I otherwise would not have.
I
saw more of the scenic countryside visiting twice as many grids than I would
have if
I worked out all the bands at each site. It is my time, my money, and my
enjoyment.
Who are you to tell me that I must be forced to work you or anyone else?
> These allegedly independent operations are no more indepedent from each
> other than the 2m op is from the 6m op on the same hilltop using the
> same callsign - or from the guy who puts up the towers, or cooks
> breakfast for the hilltop crew. They are all members of the same
> entity, seeking to benefit one station's operation.
Where do we draw the line prohibiting freedom of association? By what
reason can we prohibit the training of ops, promoting the hobby, or the loaning
of
equipment? Because it improves the score of the M/Ms who choose to make the
effort? Is that not just? They did get me and many other folks involved in
contesting.
Should they not be rewarded?
> Their status in the contest must take that into account.
Um, ok. How? The low-participation rovers that work only one or two
other
stations are not a score threat to other rovers. A "captive rover" category
would only
encourage more "captive" roving. A ban on low-participation roving would simply
lower M/M scores and lower contest participation.
Note the low-participation rover issue is entirely separate from the
circling
issue -- a circling rover does indeed present a score threat to DX rovers. I
recognize
that the DX rover's efforts are not fairly recognized by their scores in
comparison to
the circling rovers. I'm not going to complain, because I have no credible
solution to
that problem.
> Some say where's the proof? Instead, I say prove that they are
> independent as they claim. You might say, "But Bob, the rules don't
> require them to." Well, the rules should require proof.
I guess your point is that the collective community and soul of amateur
radio is harmed by the actions of a few non-conformists. A pall is cast over
the
whole contest by a few participants that somehow, incomprehensibly, do not want
to
talk to everyone they possibly can. They must be evil.
So, we are to fix this by forcing them to talk. If we just put the
proverbial
gun to their lone-wolf heads, they are sure to realize the error of their ways
and
force a big happy smile. Worked for Stalin, didn't it?
Different people enjoy different things. Get over it.
> Should some scores in the books be retroactively moved to different,
> perhaps new categories? I think that might be a good idea and deserves
> further thought.
Please, think when able, sir. Then speak.
> The rules are simply inadequate as they are today and need to be
> changed in order to adequately address these issues.
The apparent simplicity of their inadequacy is belied by the marked
inadequacy of the amendments proposed thus far.
If you want to win, look at your score, and figure out what you need to
improve. You probably need more microwave multipliers. How are you going to get
them? Build some rovers, perhaps. Much of the SZ stuff is shrewd hamfest finds
and stark simplicity. It does not have to be expensive.
Best regards - Dave KD3NC
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|