Hi Joe.
I agree that open discussion is a good thing for as long as focus remains on
the issues-at-play. Thanks for your well-presented point-of-view.
You brought up some great points. I'll reply in-line below. But first...
The purpose of "the three simple rules to normalize Rover scoring" is
specifically to provide Rovers with the same incentives that all other
participants have; and nothing more. It's not a "silver bullet" to all of the
ills of contesting. That said...
> With all due respect, please consider the situation I face
> when I try to make FN01 available to "as many stations
> as possible:
<snip>
> So, which group of "as many stations as possible"
> should I deliberately prevent from getting the FN01 mult?
>
The example that you cite simply restates the dilemma that non-rovers have
dealt with since the beginning as they attempt to adopt practices to allow them
to contact as many stations as possible - from the single location within a
Grid-4 that they must operate from. In this case, there is still a slight
Rover-advantage in that they may choose their location (along with it's pro's
and con's).
> Also, wouldn't your new Rule #3 end up totally banning
> operation while in motion? For me, that's prime 6-meter
> time if there's an opening. Again do we really want to
> outlaw working "as many stations as possible?"
This would encourage Rovers to adopt other practices to work as many stations
as possible while not in-motion. It is an issue of strategy, similar to what
HF contesters have had to deal with. "Is this a good time to take my required
off-time or will I miss that rare zone/country/etc.?" vs. "Is this a good time
to cease Grid operation or will I miss too many 6 meter QSO's between now and
when I can setup again?". It adds an exciting dimension to rover operations.
> Wouldn't it make more sense -- if we were to permit
> activation of a given grid only once -- to permit operation
> anywhere in that one grid until another grid is activated?
A single grid touches 8 others (for a total of 9). If I could move within a
grid, I could "game" the system by travelling around a grid's perimeter,
working "lunchbox" rovers. The result is that there would be a reward for not
really contacting lots of other stations. Again...no other class of operation
can do this. Neither should Rovers be able to.
> Now, how does this stop grid circling? Your way: For 8
> 10-band "toolboxes," that would be 70 Qs, 196
> Q-points and 4 mults per grid per toolbox.
I'm not sure I understand the example that you cited, but let me say that,
using "the three simple rules" method, we are left with the same problems that
everyone else has. This *includes* "captive rovers"...those who go out to
support only a single other operation. If that's what you're describing, then
I agree. However...this is no different than the issues that all other
operation deals with (the purpose of "the three simple rules").
In recap..."the three simple rules" serve to normalize rover scoring to that of
all other classes. In doing so, they eliminate grid-circling and encourage
rovers to build stations that are capable of real communication through
enhancing equipment, operator skill and strategy.
Alas, the genie is "out of the bottle". So much accommodation has been made
because of it (THREE rover categories?!?!) that other things would need to be
realigned, too. The topic of another thread, for sure. :)
Ev, W2EV
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|