[VHFcontesting] Rule Change Discussion

[Bob Naumann - W5OV]

> This proposal does not clearly define captive rover. 

On the contrary:  

"2.X.1 Reporting requirements: A multi-operator station must submit a 
list of their captive rovers to vhfcaptiveroverlist at arrl.org prior to 
submitting the multi-op log.  Each captive rover must submit their 
entire log by the normal deadline in order for qsos between the rover 
and the multi-op to count.  All multi-op qsos with their affiliated 
Captive rovers not submitting a log will be disallowed."

"2.X. Captive Rover: One or two operators of a rover station affiliated 
with one or more multi-operator stations.  A captive rovers' focus is 
on making qsos with their affiliated multi-operator station(s) from 
inactive or low activity grid squares."

How much more explicit does it need to be?  Captive are those rovers 
that a multi-op says are theirs.  If they're not, then the multi-op 
doesn't get to include their score.  By identifying who your captives 
are, you get the bonus of not only working them for multiplier and 1 pt 
per qso, but you get to add their total score to the bottom line.

The strategy for operating as a captive may change from what those who 
are captives today do.  The difference is that the score the captive 
rover makes gets added to the multiop score.  So, a new strategy comes 
into play.  The multi-op needs the multipliers, so the rover will need 
to go, but the rover could earn big points by working others too.  How 
to balance that would prove interesting.

>In addition, this rule proposal fails to address the inequity in the 
scoring of circling rovers versus DX rovers -- which is the largest 
problem with the current rules. 

On the contrary:

The circling rovers, would now be in a different category (Rover Team) 
and would not be competing with "DX rovers" which I presume are 
equivalent to what I'm now calling "Independent Rovers" - which is the 
plain old rover category simply under a new name.

> The political debate is this: should the cost of entry to the contest 
be a commitment to collectivism. Should stations be free to work 
whomever they want, wherever they want  (leaving the op to decide 
what "fun" is). Or are stations the  collective property of the 
contest, and thus be forced to work everyone they can (with the ARRL 
deciding what "fun" is). The collectivist rovers will be forced to 
select their sites to ensure they work at least N stations on each 
band. They will need to remain near populated areas, or drop the higher 
bands in order to make the proper "showing." Collectivist scoring will 
decrease pleasure and decrease grid activation, decreasing contest 
activity. On the other hand, free rovers determine what "fun" is for 
them -- which is the best way to ensure they continue to participate. <

I'm afraid I don't agree that this is in any way a political issue.  

> It is ironic that this rule proposal refers to non-captive stations 
as "independent" -- they would be anything but. It is the way of 
collectivists everywhere to redefine terms to suit their agenda: to a 
collectivist "freedom" means freedom from the tedium of having to make 
many choices.
> 

Exactly what are you drawing that conclusion on?  None of the rule 
changes that I proposed would affect rovers who are in fact independent 
from a multi-op or not part of a pack/team.  No changes are proposed to 
the existing rover rules aside from changing the name to Independent 
Rover to further clarify the distinction between the 3 new rover 
classes.

73,
Bob W5OV