I think some points are being missed here. I wasn't around when the concept of
the multi-op stations began. Let's say that until last year, there was no such
thing. Any high power station could have as many operators as they wanted.
Then, the ARRL decided that this wasn't fair so they created the multi-op
category so single op guys could compete against each other.
So far so good? Well, what if they wrote the rules in such a way that multi-op
groups could still operate with as many operators as they needed and still
compete in the single op category? They would be within the rules. Would
there be any hue and cry from the true single op guys? There should be and the
ARRL should go back and change the rules to address the problem. The multi-op
category was intended to keep groups competing against other groups.
The VUAC did a good thing when they created the Unlimited and Limited rover
categories. They just need to go back and tweak it so the right stations are
competing within their respective groups.
Again, I don't see why this is such a problem. I'm not knocking the circling
groups. I don't like what they have done, but they did it within the rules.
That means the rules need changed and they can go about their activities as
before. Nothing said should stop them from achieving huge scores and having
bragging rights. I commend them for that. I just don't want them competing
against conventional rovers. Just like the single op guys wouldn't want to be
matched against multi-op stations.
Steve
K4GUN/R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Hull" <gerry@w1ve.com>
To: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Cc: "VHF Contesting" <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 10:49:37 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A reasonable approach to the grid
circlingproblem....
And Ken, can you identify a single instance of your imaginative
rule-breakers where this has happened?
So, if someone is very creative, and comes up with a way to generate a big
score, within the rules and letter on the contest,
if they beat you in what you would consider an "unconventional" way, they
must be cheating (against the rules)?
Where, in any of the contest rules, does it say that the actions of any one
participant must benefit others? From a moral perspective, this might be a
good idea. However, it's not in the rules. Since this is radio
communication, I might expect communication with a lot of people. But it
may not be the case.
Here's a made up, but practical example (using I but not me).
- I live in the middle of nowhere
- I know much about microwave technolgy, and know how to build low power
microwave gear.
- I have a few friends close to me who are into ham radio roving like me.
- Roving with low-power gear from 6m - 48GHz is my gig... my typical power
output is milliwatts on the microwaves, but
I know I can hit a 15-50 mile path with my buddies.
- Studying the ARRL rules, I see that there is a way for me to generate a
HUGE score by grid circling with my buddies. COOL!
Should I be punished or excluded or treated like a leper because I figured
out a way to Make Big Scores?
That just does not make sense.
73, Gerry W1VE
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Kenneth E. Harker <kenharker@kenharker.com
> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:16:52PM +0000, k4gun@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think elimiating grid reactivation would do much. For absolute
> maximum score, given an unlimited amount of time, that would help, but a
> huge score could still be racked up by coordinated movement that didn't
> reactivate grids.
>
> It would just change the strategy so that a pack of four rover vehicles
> would rack up the points of one vehicle and not care about the score of the
> other three. Maybe those other three vehicles don't even turn in a log and
> thus don't have to follow the rules...
>
>
> I think the only real solution to identify these cases as situation where
> a single contest operation (the pack, or the multi-op with captive rovers
> is
> really one highly-coordinated contest operation) using multiple call signs
> to work itself, which is clearly against the rules.
>
> Imagine an HF contest where a multi-op claimed QSO credit for QSOs with its
> own operators. Upon investigation, you found out that they actually used a
> separate radio on the other side of the room with a light bulb or a dummy
> load as an antenna to make those QSOs. That station would be disqualified
> with good cause. Circle rovers and captive rovers are the same situation.
> Those contest operations should be disqualified, and we don't need new
> complicated rules to do so.
>
> --
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> kenharker@kenharker.com
> http://www.kenharker.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|