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

[Ev Tupis]

So...6-meters opens briefly and I work a rover who forgets to ID as such and I now have 50.01% of my log with Rovers.  I'm reclassified as unlimited...even though it's not my fault or intention.

I must have missed an e-mail somewhere that explains how this is good.  Back to the archives I go.  Over-and-out.

Ev, W2EV

--- On Wed, 2/18/09, Steve Clifford <k4gun.r at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 30/50 non-endorsement [was: 30/ 50 endorsement.]
> To: w2ev at yahoo.com
> Cc: "VHF Contesting eMail Remailer" <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 9:27 AM
> About the point you raised below:  No, no, no, no, no!!!! 
> How many times do
> we have to say this?  There is NO penalty for going over 30
> contacts with
> another rover.  There is no "zero point QSO". 
> The only thing that will
> happen if a rover exceeds 30 contacts with a single other
> rover or if he
> exceeds 50% of his total score with all rovers, is that
> he'll properly be
> listed as an Unlimited Rover.
> 
> Why is this such a mystery?  Why do we keep acting as if UR
> is somehow a
> punishment?  Its not.  Its not any more punishment than
> "forcing" 3 guys who
> decide to operate together from one person's house to
> be scored as a
> multi-op station.
> 
> You're smarter than this Ev.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Ev Tupis
> <w2ev at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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%?
> >
> >