[VHFcontesting] VHF Contest Rules Revisions - Part III

[Kenneth E. Harker]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 06:48:00PM +0000, Bill Olson wrote:
> Kevin, You make MANY well thought out points. Thanks for that. I will 
> comment on only one, the "Rover" section and only as it applies to 
> unlimited-multiop stations, since I have been following the "Captive Rover" 
> dialog for quite a while. First of all, at K1WHS, unlimited multiop in 
> Maine, we rely on rover stations for a good number of our microwave qso's 
> and especially grids. When the Limited Multiop entry class was started, 
> microwave activity took a BIG nose dive. i see the rover activity just as a 
> way to get some of it back. I don't know if we "sponsor" rovers or not. 
> None of the operators at K1WHS own the rover gear, it is owned by the rover 
> operators. They are, however, our friends and we do coordinate with them. 

Some of the Multi-Unlimited operations do own the gear they lend to rovers for
the weekend, with the understanding that their use of the gear will result
in QSOs with the Multi-Unlimited station.  In some cases, the rovers are
even provided with information on the exact locations from which to QSO
the multi-unlimited station, so as to eliminate even that variable of 
uncertainty.

> They work stations other than K1WHS. Not many from some of the far northern 
> grids, (where in many cases we are the closest station to work within 300 
> or 400 miles), but some, so you couldn't really call them "captive". But 

Real captive rovers are often encouraged to make a certain number of QSOs 
with stations other than the mother-ship multi-unlimited station, so as
to avoid overt appearance of captiveness.  Mostly, these "other" QSOs are
on the lower bands, where they are less likely to help the multi-unlimited
station's competition.

> the rovers do make a point of trying to work us on all the bands from each 
> grid they activate. My biggest question, and it has been all along, is how 
> can this be called (as you do below) "artificial manufacturing of 
> contacts"?? We actually work the station and play by the rules. What is 
> artificial about that? How could you possibly make a rule that said a 200 
> mile qso on 24GHz where all the information was exchanged, all in real time 
> and all within contest rules was illegal? The truth is, if "sponsored" 

We should work at coming up with a good definition of "manufactured QSOs."
Another term often used to describe these QSOs is "good buddy" QSOs.  If the 
station you are QSOing is capable, willing, and actively trying to make 
as many QSOs with as many other contesters as possible, then there is 
nothing "manufactured" about it.  If the station, however, is intentionally
limiting its activity, or has primarily organized its activity, to help 
support another particular contest effort, then those QSOs can be
considered "manufactured," as the station that benefits from them did
not come up with them as a result of fair competition.

For example, if a contester gets on in a serious single-op effort, and 
35 members of his contest club get on the air to QSO him and him alone, 
those 35 QSOs could be considered "good buddy" or "manufactured" 
QSOs, because nobody else in the contest has a fair shot at them.  They
were not made in the spirit of fair competition.

Similarly, if a rover station intentionally limits its route choices 
so as to benefit a particular multi-unlimited station, even when 
other route choices might result in a better rover score through more 
QSOs with other stations, then those QSOs with the multi-op station are 
"manufactured."  They would not be in the multi-op log if it were not 
for a distortion of fair play.

> Here's another thing. Just the pure existence of the unlimited-multi 
> "mountaintop" stations is a benefit to ALL the stations in the contest. We 
> are a source of qso's and new grids to lots of stations on ALL the bands. 
> But the unlimited multiop is really a dying breed. Very few groups have the 
> energy to put out a 10-13 band effort, especially with the 4-band limited 
> category. So why would anyone want to make the situation worse by taking 
> away even more incentive to get on the microwave bands??

I think the unlimited multi-op is a dying breed mostly because it is 
impossible to be competitive without resorting to captive rovers or
tons of skeds with "unique" stations.  So long as captive rovers are 
tolerated by the ARRL, I don't see why anyone serious would want to 
invest in building a large multi-unlimited station in the hope of 
winning the contest.



Some serious HF contesters have been arguing for a while that contest log
processing software should simply eliminate "uniques" - those stations 
that work one and only one contester.  This would eliminate the "good 
buddy" QSOs and give a more accurate view of how the contester really 
did.

I wonder if, in the VHF contests, how things would look if we eliminate 
unique band-mode QSOs?  For instance, if WW1WWW/R makes one and only one 
902 MHz QSO with NN1NNN, that QSO is removed from both stations' logs.
Of course, then the enterprise multi-unlimited station NN1NNN could just 
set up a "dummy" fixed station that all the captive rovers would have to 
drive by.  Maybe we could eliminate uniques by grid-band.  i.e. contesters
would have to make two QSOs on a given band from each grid in which they 
operate in order for either QSO to count.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth E. Harker      "Vox Clamantis in Deserto"      kharker at cs.utexas.edu
University of Texas at Austin                   Amateur Radio Callsign: WM5R
Department of the Computer Sciences          Central Texas DX & Contest Club
Taylor Hall TAY 2.124                         Maintainer of Linux on Laptops
Austin, TX 78712-1188 USA            http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------