[VHFcontesting] "Captive Rover" talking point, debunked

[John Hawkinson]

This point seems worth reiterating:

Eric Smith <kb7dqh at donobi.net> wrote on Tue, 16 Aug 2005
at 01:44:05 -0700 in <web-114960606 at donobi.com>:

> Anyway, getting the gear set up, pointed, running properly,
> etc... eats up time.  I could have kept an additional two
> or three ops busy on the lower bands while I was working
> the microwave stuff... and activated more grids during the
> allotted time, giving out more points to more operators...
> but the rules limit the number of people I can have as part
> of my rover station.  

Would a rule change here, to permit more operators for a rover
station, significantly help to reduce the incidence of rovers
who appear to be captive?

(To know this, I guess one needs better information as to how severe
the captive rover problem really is, and what the numbers are like
(among other things). We have lots of anecdotal evidence, of course,
but few hard numbers...)

There are some obvious forms such a rule change could take:

.	Add a multiop rover category with unlimited operators.

.	Retain a single rover category and permit three or four operators,
	rather than only one or two.

Thoughts? Would such a rule experiment adversely impact anyone?

--jhawk at mit.edu
  John Hawkinson
  KB1CGZ