[VHFcontesting] Rover available for captivity!

[George Fremin III]

On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 07:08:40PM +0000, Bill Olson wrote:
> 
> Now, the unlimited multiops are only competing with other unlimited 
> multi-op stations. Many of these stations also have so-called "captive" 
> rovers. Now, in truth, some of the unlimiteds "bailed" and became "limited" 
> stations because they felt they could not compete either because of lack of 
> equipment, manpower, rover stations (which I doubt), or whatever. The 

I do not nor have I ever lived in the part of the country where 
I have had a chance to compete with these stations but I think I 
can see what it is like from the outside to some extent. 

To me the thought that I would have to send rovers out - indeed an
army of rovers out that are only really going out to give contacts
to my station - the sheer thought of this sort of activity would
most if not all of the fun of the contest for me.  

It is like stacking the deck or stocking a fish pond with fish
that will only bite on my bait and then having a fishing contest.

What would be the point?  To prove what?  Where is the fun?

Is it just to have the biggest score at any cost, by any means?

It seems to me that if you have a group and you set up a 
station and then as part of that group you provide material
assistance to rovers that then go out to work you this is 
only very slightly diffrent than working your own operators.
Of course on 2.4 ghz and above - I guess that is allowed - nevermind.


I truly enjoy ham radio, I enjoy contesting on HF and VHF because it 
tends to concentraite things.  One of the things I really enjoy is 
making contacts that I dont expect or that I have not planned to make.

Calling CQ 144Mhz in the hopes that something interesting might answer me 
is fun - the thrill of making random contacts is one of the things
that keeps me going - since I never know what I might find at the 
next turn of the dial or beam or band change. 

I have thought about this alot over the years and it is the random
nature of the hunt that makes it fun for me.  As a result I find that
making skeds kills this for me - whether it is to make an EME, MS or
to work that last zone on 80 meters for my 5BWAZ - all of those things
would cheapen the result for me.  This is also why I find using DX spotting 
systems kills this sense of the true hunt for me. 

Sending an army of rovers out would make the entire effort less real for me.
So I would find something else to do I think.


> I am not sure, but I don't think I have heard any complaints about 
> so-called "captive" rovers from the unlimited multi-ops, (If so, let's hear 
> them!),

At the moment my station is in the limited catagory - even if I did a 
single op I would be on only 4 bands - I might be on 5 if pressed.
This is because I only have those bands at the moment.
Am I willing to get more bands - yes - will I?  Yes. 
It is a matter of time and money. 

So you are hearing from an unlimited multiop.

> PLUS, I am questioning how many truly "captive" rovers there are. That is 
> to say stations who will NOT work (or cannot) anyone but the "mother ship". 

Good question.  I guess we could look at the logs and see what they look like.

If those guys would like to send me their log or put them on the web
we can all take a look.

> and equipped portable stations with microwave capability that wasn't even 
> compatible with any other stations. These stations went out to mountaintops 

I have heard that W2SZ has equipment like this that some of their rovers us
to this day - stuff that has strange offsets etc.

> I think more and more the rovers are "decaptivating" themselves as they 
> find it a little boring just working one station all the time. The 
> equipment is compatible, they hear other stations so they WORK them. We 
> should let this continue to happen because it's how we help to increase 
> activity.

Yes - that is a great thing - and I would think it would be boring 
to just work one station over and over year after year.

> Finally, I don't think any rule intended to "ban" so-called "captive" 
> rovers from the contest is ENFORCEABLE even if we did determine it was a 
> good idea.

I guess I do not follow you on this one - what makes it less
enforceable than any other rule?

-- 
George Fremin III - K5TR
geoiii at kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr