It is interesting to note that there is apparently some disagreement going on
among members of the VUAC. One member being N6NB and another being W7DHC. I
think relative experience and personal biases may play parts in a person's
assessment of a situation. (I worked hard to tame down that last sentence.)
I would like to point out that a lot of people spend lot of money in building
stations, not just N6NB and his crowd. Actually, I'm not convinced that they
spent all that much money, anyway. I can think of many contesters who likely
spent much more on their stations. Many people who spend a lot of money on
their stations never win the big prize. I don't hear any sobbing going on about
them or by them! Money is not and shouldn't be the
issue.
And, this baloney about circumventing the rules is just that: baloney. Let's
not ever forget this fact: COMPETITORS ALWAYS USE THE RULES TO THEIR BEST
ADVANTAGE. It disgusts me to see all this rabid blaming of winners of contests.
So, now we come down to the "intent." as mentioned in the rules. Before this
wishy-washy word appeared in the rules, there was very little dissent, over the
years, about the rules. Rules were seen to need changes and changes were made
or not made, and contesters did what they needed to do to follow the rules.
Now, we have this word that introduces the notion that some people might do
something that doesn't follow the intent of the rules. So, who is going to be
the judge of what the correct intent means or that the intent is being
followed, eh? The competitor, who will use the rules to his best advantage or
the contest committee who is demanding that the competitor follow the rules?
The big problem here is
not
that N6NB and his crowd is cheating or breaking the intent or anything else.
It's that there are all these guys who are deciding for themselves that this is
going on because of THEIR interpretation of the intent of the rules and/or
motives of the competitor. Bottom line: rewrite the rules in a straight-forward
manner and get rid of rubbery words like intent. If you do that, people will
choose what category to enter based partly on their realization that maybe they
will be beat by so-and-so, rather than, instead, beating their chest and
pointing their fingers at "the rich cheaters."
Don't pass judgement on other competitors and assume you know their motives.
W7DHC got his advice right. I would have prefaced it differently, but, it boils
down to this: Enter the contest to have fun. Try to win a local or regional
part of the competition. Work to bolster your club's score. Compete against
local friends. Work to build your grid count. These are
the things that I do and what
most people do in contests. Above all, remember that with the right outlook
we can all be winners.
73,
Paul, K7CW
--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Jim Aguirre <w7dhc@earthlink.net> wrote:
From: Jim Aguirre <w7dhc@earthlink.net>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Rover rule changes
To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 10:04 AM
Steve, et al:
VUAC has considered, EXTENSIVELY, every one of the "proposed" rover
rule changes I have seen here on the reflector over the past several months. As
has been noted by others, each suggested rule change has it's good and bad
points. None, however, have been the "silver bullet" everyone seems
to be looking for. I'm afraid the only guy with a "silver bullet"
is the Lone Ranger of yesteryear...and, I don't think he's a contester!
In that regard, I have come to understand that there is no way rule
changes
will
make everyone happy, nor will they prevent some people from finding ways
around whatever rules are put in place. Yes, the "lunchbox brigade"
can, and probably will, find a way to win under any set of rules.
The fact is that ANYONE can win one or more rover classes (or fixed station
classes, for that matter) in a given contest, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO THROW HUGE
AMOUNTS OF MONEY INTO THE SOLUTION. (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are you
listening?) What is the point, however? If you simply "buy" a
contest win with a whole bunch of "lunchbox" stations passed out like
candy, it would seem to me to have little meaning. If your goal is just to get
your name in QST, you can save a whole bunch of money by buying an ad!
So, those of us who aren't willing or able to throw lots of money into
setting a up a whole bunch of "team rovers" and dedicated single-op
stations simply need to find other
ways
to compete. Set
some personal goals and
compete against them. Compete for a class win in your section. Work with
others in your club to boost your club score. Head up to a mountaintop with
your QRP rig and compete in that class. Let those who are compelled to
"buy" a certificate do their thing.
The rover rule changes recommended recently by VUAC (30/50% and others) may
help sort out the unlimited rovers from the limited and traditional rovers, but
they will not "level the playing field." That is simply not possible
due to geographic and demographic differences in various regions of the country.
By the way, it is beginning to look like any new rover rules will probably NOT
be in play for the June VHF Contest. September is more likely. Anything can
happen, however, so "stay tuned."
Jim - W7DHC
-----Original Message-----
>From:
vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com
>Sent: Feb 19,
2009 12:00
PM
>To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>Subject: VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 74, Issue 45
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:07:00 -0500
>From: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
>Subject: [VHFcontesting] Lunchbox QRP
>To: VHF Contesting eMail Remailer <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
>Message-ID:
> <cf8c8bec0902181407w69307f6am9c27cf483d7fb905@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>I've been on record as supporting the idea of the 30/50 solution that
the
>VUAC has proposed. I still think its the best solution, but I have this
>nagging concern that I'm wondering if anybody else has really put their
mind
>to.
>
>Could the Lunchbox Brigade establish QRP portable or SOLP bases to continue
>to dominate Limited and
Classic Rover and then also take over yet another
>category?
I don't think
it can be done with the combination of 30 QSOs
with
>individual rover and 50% with all rovers, but I'd like to hear
speculation
>from others.
>
>I'm sitting here with a grid map and trying to figure out how they
could
>game the new rules. Could they find a place within one or two grids that
>would give a QRP station or an SOLP station coverage into 6 to 9 grids?
>They really would only need to find one location that had good lines to a
>few of their grid intersections and set up three stations at the same
>place. All could aim to the same intersection at the same time.
>
>What would that do? If they found a location with a good line to two
>intersections, that would be 8 grids. If they had three stations at that
>location, it would mean the rovers would have 24 possible
contacts per band
>used. For the Limited Rover guys, that's 96 QSOs,
meaning they
could
go up
>to 192 total Q's per contest without bumping into Unlimited. If they
could
>do it on 10 bands, that would be 240 contacts, giving them a possible 480
>for the contest.
>
>Those are beatable numbers. They are high, but still beatable. The bigger
>problem will be what happens to the SOLP and QRP guys. Let's say all 8
of
>the pack are operating as Limited Rovers in order to make it easier for
them
>to stay under the 30 contact limit. They hit just 8 grids. That's 256
>QSOs.
>
>I realize that 256 QSOs on 4 bands and into only 8 grids is not enough to
>put a QRP station into the dominant spot, but its a hell of a Bogey.
Change
>one or two of those Limited Rovers to classic or unlimited and the Q count
>and mults go through the
roof.
>
>Maybe I am looking too far out. I would like to think that they will
alter
>tactics to
actually look outside their group and if they do, that's
great.
>I'm all for it. I just have this nagging feeling that we might be
setting
>up to allow them to dominate yet another category.
>
>That brings up the question as to whether or not th 30/50 rule will work.
I
>think it will, but I wonder if 50% is too high or if we need to do what
>others have suggested and look to scoring changes for rovers.
>
>Just some food for thought.
>
>Steve
>K4GUN/R
_______________________________________________
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
|