[VHFcontesting] How to "fix" grid circling

[jon jones]

Here is a "quick fix" to the rover grid circling dilemma:

Prohibit rover-to-rover QSOs. Rovers only permitted to count QSOs with fixed 
stations.

The ARRL already prohibits DX stations from counting QSOs with other DX 
stations in the ARRL VHF Contests, they can only work W/VE.  So there is a 
precedent of sorts.

If this seems too harsh... another solution would be rovers can count QSOs 
with other rovers only if they are at least 25 or 50 km away. This would not 
stop grid circling, but would slow the process down significantly. Kind of 
like a proposed solution to SPAM e-mail which would require a PC sending an 
e-mail to solve a math problem set up by the e-mail server. Does not stop 
it... but slows it down enough to where spammers find it unprofitable to 
continue.

I applaud N6MU for the technical achievement of setting up 10 bands in a 
rover. Amazing. Really. I still have trouble getting 4 bands to play while 
operating QRP portable. Out in the midwest we do appreciate the Rovers, as 
NE0P notes. I appreciated KF0M/r QSOs in the last contest.

K7CW is correct that no rules for the contest were broken.  But WM5R and 
K3UHF are right in pointing out that rover grid circling caravans somehow 
just don't seem right or sporting. But how to fix the problem without 
discouraging activity - for both rover and fixed stations. That is the real 
dilemma.

- Jon N0JK



>As far as I'm concerned, these guys did nothing
unsportsmanlike. They took advantage of the rules as
they are written.

The ARRL needs to effectively address the grid
circling matter in a fair way, but soon.

K7CW

--- "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:51:07AM -0400,
>N6MU1 at aol.com wrote:
> > > The only way midwest or west coast rovers can be
>competitive nationally > is to join forces.  WTX is the best area of the
>country where multiple > convergences are readily available close to major
>highways.  I don't > understand the objection to grid circling when
>there is literally no > one else to work. Also, where I go to operate is
>solely my choice.
>
>Here is why grid circling sucks.
>
>In order to effectively grid circle, multiple rover
>stations must be operating in a highly coordinated manner.  It does
>not happen by accident.
>The complexity and coordination of the scheduling
>involved probably exceeds the level of planning most multi-operator station
>put into scheduling their
>operators.  The point is, it is obvious that
>grid-cirlcing rovers are really
>operating ONE contest operation with MULTIPLE
>stations and callsigns.  When
>two, three, or four rovers coordinate in the way
>that you have recently been doing, it is not two, three, or four separate
>contest operations - it is one planned and executed operation that involves
>two, three, or four callsigns, mostly just making QSOs with itself.
>
>Just as single operator contest efforts are not made
>to compete with multioperator contest efforts, single-station
>contest efforts should not
>be expected to compete against multi-station contest
>efforts, and nobody should be competing against a contest effort that
>can manufacture an arbitrary number of QSOs with itself.
>
> > This "idiot" is proud to be part of the group that
>raised the roving > bar this year. If you think designing and building
>multiple reliable > and portable ten-band rover stations including
>antennas isn't > technically challenging, try it.
>
>Just because some technical achievement is
>challenging, does not mean that
>your use of that technical achievement demonstrates
>good sportsmanship.
>
>--
>Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
>kenharker at kenharker.com
>http://www.kenharker.com/