[VHFcontesting] controversy

[James Duffey]

On Jul 28, 2008, at 7:55 AM, k4gun at comcast.net wrote:

> 	You don't have to wait for the scores to come out.  Take a look at  
> the log submissions and you'll see that they have the claimed scores  
> posted.  Put that 	into a spreadsheet and take a look at the top  
> score in each rover category.

I think it is dangerous to extrapolate contest results from claimed  
scores and soapbox entries. I think it is also dangerous to come to  
conclusions as to the fairness of operating practices of the leaders  
based on these results. As you suggested, I did put the scores into  
the spreadsheet, however, and sorted them by class. There are two  
rover-limited entries with no claimed scores, so if they have high  
scores, then the conclusions are also off.

You are right, it is instructive.

Yes, in the rover-limited class, the winner, KG6TOA, had more than  
twice the score than the runner up, W3DHJ. Is all of this difference  
due to KG6TOA participating in a rover squaring exercise? Other  
factors probably contributed to the disparity in scores as well. For  
one, KG6TOA operated on 4 bands and W3DHJ operated on only 2. I  
suspect that KG6TOA operated on multiple point bands, while W3DHJ  
operated on six and 2, both single point bands. KG6TOA visited 15  
grids, W3DHJ visited only 4. These will all contribute to the large  
score differential between first and second places, not just the  
participation of KG6TOA in a grid squaring exercise.

You also wrote:

	You will notice that the top in all three have more than double the  
next highest score and that the call signs are the same as those  
listed in the grid 	circling soapbox.

In the classic rover class, N6NB claims 270k points, AE5P/R claims  
160k points, a ratio of  1.7, not double. There are three more  
stations in the classic rover standings before you get to a doubling  
of the score. That distribution of scores does not seem out of place  
given the small size.

Is there anything wrong with the CA roving group finishing 1-2 in the  
Unlimited Rover Category? That is why the category was started. The  
interesting thing is that their scores would have been even higher if  
the classic rover and limited rover had participated as full members  
of the grid squaring expedition. So the new rules seem to have had an  
unintended consequence of reducing the unlimited rover scores as well  
as participation in this class. There isn't a whole lot of competition  
in that class anyway, which was what some people predicted. Perhaps it  
will grow.

Note the QRP Portable class. The leader claims 84k points, the runner  
up 39k. This is not too different than the ratio in the rover-limited  
category in which you are concerned about unfair tactics. Is that  
score differential instructive enough to surmise that something unfair  
is going on here as well? I suspect not. And no soapbox was posted.  
One cannot surmise that there is something unfair going on solely on  
the basis of scores.

The ratio in the single op low power class between first and second is  
about 1.6, not too different than the ratio in the Classic rover  
division. Is something unfair going on there with the leader? Why do  
the scores indicate it in one case and not the other?

Interestingly enough there were only 91 rovers this year compared to  
98 last year. I hope that this is not a trend. Rovers rove! Don't  
worry about where the rules put you in the standings!

I am not sure where all of this is going. It probably has ceased being  
productive, but if you are going to make these claims about the scores  
indicating unfair operating practices, then the numbers should support  
them.

Support your local rover. Work him in every grid on every band. - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM