[VHFcontesting] 30/50 non-endorsement [was: 30/ 50 endorsement.]

[Ev Tupis]

With the best of intentions, the 30/50 proposal misses the mark on many levels.

I'll start by re-asking, "As regard to CQ and ARRL VHF contests, no other class is artificially limited to the number of QSO's they may log, why must Rovers be?"

--- On Tue, 2/17/09, frank bechdoldt <k3uhf at hotmail.com> wrote:

> The programs will have to be changed to flag QSO number 31
> so it is not logged, or better yet QSO 30 so you don't
> opperate again.

And the paper loggers?

Maybe rovers simply "log everything and let the Log-robot sort it out later"?  There won't be much happiness, when the robot 0-points contacts that exceeded the limit, yet consumed a considerable amount of time, effort and skill to make.  They are real contacts, after all...they simply exceeded some arbitrary and artificial limit.

As for the % thing.  If the "right" limit is N% then why is the "wrong" limit N+10% or N-10%?

> So in the end it may breed some circling like habbits.

What is gained by 30/50 scoring, then?

> I know it sounds hard, but if you work 500 non roving
> contacts, you can work any one rover up to 50 times.  So the
> more people you share your contacts with, the more you can
> benifit from a chance encounter with another station.

Does the 30/50 rule apply to all QSO's logged or does it apply on a band-by-band basis?  The answer matters.

> This system would also ensure that you do not become an
> acidental unlimited rover.

If one can "accidentally" become another class of entry...then the Rover-category classifications are broken, too.

Ev, W2EV