The funny thing is, the stations that are dominating now with their legal,
but claimed by some "unethical" techniques will continue to win, whatever
the rules are, because they will plan their operations to take maximum
advantage of the rules and stay one step ahead of their competitors. If
they see that XYZ rover has added 24GHz, they will add 24 and 47GHz. They
will add more power, WSJT, APRS, HAM/IM, CWSkimmer, or add EME capabilities
to make sure they have the maximum potential to make contacts/mults. Did
you know that N6NB/R used to (and probably still does) run KW amps on
6-432? Have you seen pictures of the antenna setup on N6TEB/R? How many
other rovers will go to that level of station to be competitive? So
excluding the June contest where 6M can make or break the top spot, the top
stations (in any class SOLP, QRP/p, etc) will continue to win, just the
difference in scores between the top rover spots and those that made a
valiant effort will be smaller.
Intents need to codified, if the desired results are to be enforced. I
mentioned to the Advisory Committee that Limited-Rover was a bad idea and
"intended to" will never hold up. If the desire is to make LR an
entry-level class, add a rule limiting entry in that class to X number of
contests.
I am not a rover, but have played a rover. I appreciate the efforts that
all rovers make to give us points (a lot of points from some of them).
My final comments on this never ending thread.
>You will notice that the top in all three have more than double the next
>highest score and that the call signs are the same as those listed in the
>grid circling soapbox.
>
73, Robert KR7O/YB2ARO, DM07ba/OI52ee (ex. N7STU)
kr7o@vhfdx.com
www.vhfdx.com (KR7O/YB2ARO homepages)
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|