[VHFcontesting] VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 72, Issue 15

Christopher Burke chris at n9yh.com
Mon Dec 8 22:32:58 EST 2008

Holy cow!  Eliminating rover to rover QSOs would be silly and completely
against the spirit of the contest.  Rovers are supposed to work as many
stations as possible, except if they're rovers?

Let's call a spade a spade - there's no way to end all of this debating.  If
we went to distance based scoring the cry would be, "How do we KNOW they
were where they said???"

I have a meager allowance.  I don't care about winning a contest because
I'll never have enough money to have a super whiz bang competitive station,
though I do play with the N9UHF group that has done well in the Central
Division of late (June was a squeaker, though! :-).  I get on the air
because it's fun and I hang out with my local radio club buddies.  I really
don't care what the grid circlers are doing.

That being said, here is a completely serious suggestion: why don't those of
you who are irritated about the current state of the rules start your own
contest?  Then you could do whatever you wanted.  March or April would be a
fine time for another VHF contest - it would slot in right between January
and June.

Regarding open logs, as long as we make sure logs get posted AFTER the
submission period is ended it's fine.  It may sound obvious, but it's
something that could easily slip your mind when you submit your log to the
bot and just upload it to the Internet.  A central repository is probably
the best idea to keep this from being a problem.

73!  Chris N9YH

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM, <vhfcontesting-request at contesting.com>wrote:

> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:59:09 -0700
> From: Eric Watkins <shelshok at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Rovers
> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <20081209015915.21E3F1B609FB at dayton.contesting.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> Tom, I have to agree with you. If this "extremely simple rule" were
> put in place it would kill almost all rover activity. We're not out
> here driving around on expensive gas just to serve the stationary
> stations, much as the attitudes of some others seem to indicate.  If
> this change is ok, what's wrong with "stationary station to
> stationary station" contacts don't count? Why not? How, if this is an
> OK restriction for rovers should it not apply to the stationary stations?
> Rover rule critics: Why do people so have it out for the "evil"
> rovers!?!?!? We're not pissing in your class rules, don't piss all over
> ours.
> kr0ver/r

Chris Burke
chris at n9yh.com

More information about the VHFcontesting mailing list