[VHFcontesting] VHF Contest Rules Revisions - Part III

[Hoffman, Mark]

A couple comments, along with original text below:

What groups do you know of that "sponsors" rovers? Of all the rovers I know,
each and every one of them not only owns their own gear, but does it for the
competitive nature of roving - NOT to "Artifically" run up a big M/M score.
This includes a few top-10 rovers, and a number of other competitive
10-band+ rovers. 

When you said:

"The only unlimited multis that are now competitive are those with the
where-with-all to sponsor three, four, or even more rovers at a time, all
with microwave capabilities." 

That's bull. Those unlimited multis are also in some of the best geographic
locations in the USA, using quality equipment and antennas, that have been
developed over a NUMBER of years. Most of the biggest M/M stations attract
lots of callers, lots of support, and lots of venom. It's not their
"patronage" of rovers that gets them the big score. 

In order for you to make this assertion, you better present evidence. It
implies that these M/M are violating the intent of the rules. Remember,
association does NOT mean sponsorship. If I rove for zz2zz, it doesn't mean
that zz2zz SPONSORS me. All it means, is that my interest lies with zz2zz.
Nothing artificial about that. 

> Rovers.  Despite two separate rules changes on the
> rovers in the mid-1990's, rovers are still having the
> effect of distorting both the unlimited multi category
> and the club competition. The only unlimited multis
> that are now competitive are those with the
> where-with-all to sponsor three, four, or even more
> rovers at a time, all with microwave capabilities. We
> should consider reviewing the rules to prevent the
> artificial manufacturing of contacts by rovers. This
> brings up the old rover debate all over again, and may
> reduce rover activity in any event, so I have mixed
> feelings on the matter. If we prohibit sponsorship by
> the multi's, are we also to prohibit sponsorship or
> point production by rovers for SO or QRP sponsors? 
> How is "sponsorship" to be defined? 

The robot isn't the issue with log submission. All Cabrillo represents is a
new way to format data. That's it. No different than block vs. cursive
handwriting - it's just the presentation. If your logging software doesn't
do it, get something else that does. If you don't want to spend money, there
are a half-dozen packages out there that are FREE (and very good, too). If
you don't want to computer log, then your paper logs are still accepted! 

All the robot does is work on the GIGO principle. If the contest period is
1900z to 0359z, 01/19/03 to 01/21/03 then you can't log someone at 04:00
01/21/03. That's not in the contest period. If you log a callsign such as
K23AXX, yeah - its probably wrong. If you munge a grid as FN112CS, that's
not a valid grid either. Fix these errors (as they are obvious typos) and
resubmit. 

> The Robot.  Some are critical of the automated robot,
> arguing that this may be a supporting reason for the
> log declines.  I share the general frustration over
> the robot, as I also have run into problems with it. 
> But so what?  Every new technology has its bugs and
> eccentricities. Surely, the robot should not be seen
> as a major impediment to the situation.  Besides, I
> have confidence that the Robot will get better and
> better (and so will our use of it).  We may end up
> scoffing at such comments within just a very few
> years.  

AMEN! Agree 100%. 

> Reinstatement of the Full Rules in QST.  I am more
> concerned about the loss of the Rules within the pages
> of QST than I am about the loss of the line scores. 
> If people are not continually reminded of the
> contests, they will wander off to other things.  I
> seriously doubt if a marginally interested ham will go
> to that same web-site to learn all about the many and
> varied nuances of VHF contesting.  It sure looks like
> all contests, both HF and VHF, are being given short
> shrift here. It is appropriate to at least have the
> full rules set out in the magazine, I request the
> reinstatement of the full rules back into QST. 


-Mark, K2AXX
ABCD9EFGHIJP
FN12cs