Ken said:
> If the contest rules supported the goal of rewarding the best stations
> operated by the highest performing operators, then operating within the
> rules and having solid contesting strategies and skills would result in
> the stations that most deserve to win taking the top prizes.
I think the debate can be summed up in the phrase 'stations that most
deserve to win.' In other words what you (or I) think is 'the best
station' and whom you (or I) think are the highest performing
operators becomes 'the most deserving.'
I _personally_ think the N6 rovers fall squarely into your above
definition. They built 3 very well designed rover vehicles, manned
them with experienced operators, operated within the rules and
designed a solid contest strategy. They garnered the most points.
Activating 22 grids is not taking the kids to the library for an hour.
They worked very hard and got rewarded for that work. You
_personally_ don't feel that way. And that's fine. All of us are
certainly entitled to hold unique and divergent opinions.
Then there are the rovers in WTX who have a genuine gripe about being
blindsided score-wise. They are the only ones truly affected by this
strategy. The rest of us (everyone except the N6 and WTX rovers) are
having a philosophical discussion based on one's theoretical ideals on
VHF contesting.
My personal ideals make my contesting somewhat relaxed. I don't think
you _owe_ me a QSO even if I know full well that you have 432 and we
just worked on 144. You are completely free to work whomever you wish
to, and that includes getting on the air, working a single station and
then turning off the power. I don't believe the N6 rovers _owe_
anybody a QSO either. I am completely, adamantly against any proposal
to punish an 'undeserving' station for not giving out a QSO. For that
matter, I am completely against any proposal to punish an
'undeserving' station for winning.
I think that VHF contesting rules are working just fine as-is. They
are general enough to allow a multitude of strategies and still narrow
enough to call a winner. By leaving the scoring mechanism exactly the
same, it enables me to see if I've improved over last year. A scoring
change means that the continuity of historical results is broken. I
believe that adding a new rover category for mega rovers to enter will
help the rovers in WTX whose scores were skewed, and it will leave the
rest of us rovers free to keep on doing what we already do.
As long as we're talking about goals, why not propose a high moral
standard that contestants must meet? Like the Miss America pageant.
That would allow the contest director to disqualify contestants who
don't deserve to win but did anyway.
Very best regards de Buck, KC2HIZ/r
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|