[VHFcontesting] More Roving

[frank bechdoldt]

I respectfully disagree with Duffy, I think he a nice guy, though... and encourage him to keep roving in out here in the middle of nowhere.  
 
Actually there is a spirit and intent of all rules made by mankind. Every time I get a new safety rule at work its because someone did something stupid.
 
Some may skirt one of the 10 commandments by insisting that they are borrowing something rather than stealing. 
 
In regards to what I will call “hijacking” of the limited roving class to propel a team to win several categories:
 
The intent as stated by some on the VUAC is that “we never dreamt that someone would do something like this when we crafted the rule changes.”  Some of were in the room when that was said.  I forget by who on the VUAC said that someone one here could confirm this.  It does not matter. 
 
I believe the VUAC thought the guys would get the point and appreciate their own category to compete. It was an attempt by the ARRL and VUAC to be inclusive and some participants chose act in controversial ways that are clearly and historically divisive within our community.
 
Its like a city building a fancy skateboard park and the skaters insist on using the city hall stairs because they believe its their god given right to skate on the courthouse steps.  Sooner or later some old lady gets hurt by some young punk.
 
We are not complaining without offering ideas. They have been churned well. The ideas have yet to elicit change, but it does not mean they are not valid.  Simply go back through some of the summer posts on here or look at the pages zipped files of months past you will find that most of the top 10 big zipped files include a rover related controversy in that month’s post.  A lot of the good ideas are lost in the name calling that result.  This is by design.  If you turn constructive criticism in to a stink bomb people will walk away.   
I remained quiet about this until QST posted the article which is a small event related to this.  
 
I do think the ARRL will get back to this with some community organization efforts but I would not call for a boycott.   Go through the HF Blogs and you will see the need for open logs.  
 
January 1st would be a good time for the ARRL to make it clear that all the logs are posted on line and it would be enough warning to change some behavior which is likely a bigger problem below 30 mhz.
 
Roving and portable opps could be a way to get younger people into ham radio.> From: jamesduffey at comcast.net> To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com> Subject: More Roving> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:29:52 -0700> CC: jamesduffey at comcast.net; k3uhf at hotmail.com> > Frank - You wrote:> > To answer James’s question : The issue is more the manipulation of > the rules and lack of forethought in the creation of the rules. That > being taking something that was meant to encourage new people to our > sport and manipulating it to work as a team to win all three classes > roving. This is like having Bobbie Fisher showing up to the elementary > school chess club and beating all the 8 year old kids in 5 moves and > using the results to declare himself national champ. That being said > I’m sure some would compete in a limited fashion just to see how far > they could go, So it needs to be limited at or below 1.3 ghz. That’s > where the commercial stuff is and that what the class was made for. > This would not punish the microwave people. They are not beginners.> The process of healing of ALL contesting will begin with open logs.> > > I am not sure that the VUAC thought of the limited class exclusively > to attract Joe 706 pack to contesting, but rather to form a class > where one would not need significant resources to compete effectively > as a rover. A four band and a 160 Watt limitation pretty well defines > the upper limit of what one can spend on a rove and still drive around > in a street legal vehicle. While I am sure that the VUAC did not > contemplate a limited rover operating solely on the microwave bands > while roving, they did nothing to prevent that in the rules. Now that > has happened they can reconsider hte rule, if it should be changed and > if something should be changed, what.> > > Rules are rules. One either follows the rules or he disregards them. > If one can follow the rules and not get the expected results then the > rules need to be changed. But one should not blame the one who is > following the rules.> > > There are lots of ways to deal with grid squaring. The current attempt > was a good start. It is not perfect, nor did the VUAC expect it to be. > It can be made to work. There are other alternatives. I outlined some > of them in a previous e-mail.> > > No matter what we think of the present situation, it does no good to > complain without suggesting a viable alternative. Suggesting that > someone do something is not very valuable. Suggesting what > specifically they should do is a much more valuable contribution to > the sport. If you don't like the current state of affairs in roving, > suggest specific alternatives that will fix the problem without > introducing new problems. - Duffey> > > --> KK6MC> James Duffey> Cedar Crest NM> > > > > 
_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows® connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/