VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] 30/50 non-endorsement [was: 30/ 50 endorsement.]

To: w2ev@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 30/50 non-endorsement [was: 30/ 50 endorsement.]
From: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:27:27 -0500
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
About the point you raised below:  No, no, no, no, no!!!!  How many times do
we have to say this?  There is NO penalty for going over 30 contacts with
another rover.  There is no "zero point QSO".  The only thing that will
happen if a rover exceeds 30 contacts with a single other rover or if he
exceeds 50% of his total score with all rovers, is that he'll properly be
listed as an Unlimited Rover.

Why is this such a mystery?  Why do we keep acting as if UR is somehow a
punishment?  Its not.  Its not any more punishment than "forcing" 3 guys who
decide to operate together from one person's house to be scored as a
multi-op station.

You're smarter than this Ev.

Steve

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> And the paper loggers?
>
> Maybe rovers simply "log everything and let the Log-robot sort it out
> later"?  There won't be much happiness, when the robot 0-points contacts
> that exceeded the limit, yet consumed a considerable amount of time, effort
> and skill to make.  They are real contacts, after all...they simply exceeded
> some arbitrary and artificial limit.
>
> As for the % thing.  If the "right" limit is N% then why is the "wrong"
> limit N+10% or N-10%?
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>