[VHFcontesting] "highly undesireable practices"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi all,

    This is an excellent post. 

    It is worth noting that the current system does,
of course, provide crude distance-based scoring. The
number of grids available varies with r squared, where
r is the nominal QSO distance of the station for that
band. Further, since the QSO points are larger than
the grid count, the score varies roughly with r
squared too. So better stations are handsomely
rewarded.

    The problem with the rover scores is that they can
mechanically move their station in lieu of improving
their equipment.

    So, as an alternative to consider instead of
distance-based scoring, how about this: Rovers count
relative grids toward their score, rather than
absolute grids. So, if the rover is in FN32 and works
grids FN32 and FN33, then moves to FN42 and works
grids FN42 and FN43, the grids multiplier will be two
instead of four. As a visualization aid, imagine you
score your grids on a transparency with an unlabeled
grid plot. To score your contact, center the
transparency over your current grid and color in the
grid you worked. If you move grids, you move your
transparency. Easy.  This preserves the r-squared
property of the fixed station score, with out a great
deal of math. The disadvantage of this idea versus
Duane's idea is that it does not provide the same
reward for all DX contacts.

        Best regards - Dave KD3NC

--- Duane Grotophorst <n9dg at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- John Geiger <johngeig at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > I feel the whole grid circling/capative
> > roving issue came up because one group, or maybe a
> > couple of groups, didn't win what they felt they
> > deserved to, so they had to start complaining and
> > blaming others.  
> 
> No, not really if you stop and think about it. One
> of
> the foundation premises of ham radio contesting is
> to
> push the capability limits of our stations on a
> *technical* level for the gear that we use and/or
> build. Grid circling shifts the focus from that
> basic
> premise to one where pushing the limits of
> scheduling
> and time management become the central goal. The
> rover
> groups who set out to run up really large scores by
> close spaced circling typically put very little
> genuine effort into working others outside of their
> closed group. Often their station setup simply
> precludes them from even being able to do so with
> any
> degree of success.
> 
> Furthermore the current Q's X multiplier scoring
> system places a greater emphasis on the *quantity*
> of
> Q's over the *quality* (expressed in distance). As
> such the rules excessively favor high population
> density areas. Grid circling rovers artificially
> create their own high population density areas at
> every corner that they go to. Does that really do
> anything to encourage the building stations with the
> best RX and TX performance as is possible?
>   
> > Personally, I find nothing wrong with capative
> > rovers
> > or grid circling.  I go into each contest knowing
> > that
> > I am not going to win based on geography alone. 
> > THere
> > is just no way that I can complete with the higher
> > density areas.  Maybe those of us in less
> popluated
> > areas should get a special "lack of activity"
> > multiplier to even us out with 1 land.
> 
> There really is no need for a special "multiplier"
> for
> anybody anywhere. I still believe that a simple
> distance based scoring system will go a long way
> toward solving the problem with grid circling (and
> the
> current scoring disincentive for stations in the
> high
> population areas to try harder to work the stations
> in
> the lower population areas). I rather not see rules
> that only seek to prohibit specific activities but
> instead to see rules that better reward the efforts
> for everyone to make more longer distance Q's. For
> rovers the primary strategy will then become how to
> maximize their station's capability to work farther.
> Rovers who want to circle still can, they will just
> need to balance the strategy trade-offs of making a
> lot of easier close-in Q's (at lower points per Q)
> or
> fewer harder but longer distance Q's (for more
> points
> per Q).
> 
> The way the rules are now with the scoring system it
> all but *encourages* rovers to pack together and
> circle close together. But if the primary rover
> strategy is shifted by virtue of a better point
> reward
> system for longer distance Q's (distance based
> scoring) then the chances of them working more fixed
> stations also rises whether the rover's underlying
> strategy is geared more toward circling or not.
> Additionally with distance based scoring those far
> away fixed stations become much more valuable for
> the
> rovers to work, so they will be more inclined to
> make
> the effort. The way it is now long haul Q's to
> anybody
> (rover or not) isn't worth the effort when they are
> cranking through a bunch of Q's with the others
> nearby
> in the pack. The rules now (and as proposed) provide
> little or no incentive for the rovers to make the
> extra effort to make the long haul Q's. In reality
> the
> long haul Q's should be their highest priority, not
> the lowest. Distance based scoring goes a long way
> toward achieving that. So complex rules about time
> "in
> grid", or for prohibition to return to a grid are
> simply not needed.    
> 
> There is also a side benefit to fixed stations as
> well
> with distance based scoring. This is because the
> stations in the higher population areas would also
> have more incentive to put more effort into working
> as
> many stations as they can who are out in the sticks
> (including those rovers who also have a reason to be
> out in the sticks). The way it is now stations in
> the
> higher population areas only have decent incentive
> to
> work *one* station per far away grid. This is
> because
> every additional Q to that same far away grid is
> just
> an *incremental* increase to their score. With
> distance based scoring *every* far away Q is nearly
> equal in value to the first. And is therefore worth
> the extra effort.
> 
> There is very little downside to distance based
> scoring because all of the things that ops would do
> to
> improve their station's for the long haul Q's does
> little to disincentive them from *also* making the
> close-in Q's like they do already. So in the end
> there
> will actually be more Q's for everybody as long as
> the
> contest emphasis is placed on encouraging the
> building
> of as good a station as we each can, the current
> rules
> don't really do that as good as they could.
> Rewarding
> *all* of the longer distance Q's (not just the first
> time a new grid/mult is worked) with a higher points
> does that. Unfortunately the proposed 2-3 point
> scheme
> does not. The simplest way to achieve distance
> scoring
> is to use 6-digit grids for all exchanges/logging
> and
> let the ARRL robot compute the distance score from
> them.
> 
> Duane
> N9DG
> EN53bj
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools