[VHFcontesting] "Preventing" grid circling

[John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK]

Hey Gang,

Rather than PREVENTING Grid Circling/Pack Roving by implementing a Post 
Contest PENALTY for these practices...how about a scoring provision that 
reduces or removes the Reward (score) for repeated Rover-to-Rover contacts 
over _trivial distances_?

The "QSO Point change" proposed in the "Request For Comments" _already_ 
suggests a distinction in Point Value for contacts "with your own grid and 
any adjacent grid" versus contacts "beyond that." (See Footnote 1 below my 
.sig.)

What if *ONLY ONE* "Rover-to-Rover" contact (per band) "with your own grid 
and any adjacent grid" received QSO Point Credit?

I WOULD, however, allow the "beyond that" Contacts between Rovers to receive 
the same QSO Point credit as NON-Rover-to-NON-Rover contacts. (See Footnote 
2 below my .sig.)

This could be implemented EITHER on an entire contest basis (only ONE QSO 
Point Credit per band between one Rover station and another Rover 
station...for any location pairs that were in the same or adjacent grid) OR 
on a grid-by-grid basis for the rover (ONE QSO Point Credit between the 
rovers per band for each "MYGRID" that the respective Rover visits).

I believe this would greatly reduce incentive to Grid Circle or Pack Rove 
and might even abate the magnitude of Rover Scores that it would NOT be 
necessary to exclude them from Club Competition.

I believe this would also work best with the PRESENT Rover Multiplier 
Aggregation versus the "Rover Classic" method (a.k.a. "rover scoring rules 
originally established in 1991").

Thanks for reading...Comments?

73, JK, K9, that is... (OFTEN 'slash arrrgh')


Footnotes:

1. The shortest distance for "beyond that" at substantially populated 
latitudes is the N-S distance of one grid square, approx. 70 
miles...UN-fortunately a 115 mile path is very possible within the same grid 
and a 240 mile path is possible between adjacent grids, ALSO NON-trivial 
distances, but the mechanics to implement a 'better' distance based 
provision would, I believe, really complicate the rules/scoring and end up 
discouraging 'more casual' operators).

2. A 'side' issue here is whether or not contacts on 50 MHz for "beyond 
that" distances should receive a higher point value than 50 MHz contacts 
"with your own grid and any adjacent grid"...other than the exclusion for 
repeated Rover-to-Rover contacts that I suggest, my opinion is that 50 MHz 
contacts, and maybe even 144 MHz contacts, should receive 1 QSO 
point...PERIOD.

_________________________________________________________________
Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday. 
http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx