[MiQP-Mail] Rover category

[K9TM]

There is nothing to stop someone from operating from multiple counties  
(or states) today.  This is covered by rule 8e and 8f.  No rule change  
is required.

Simply creating a new category won't generate more activity.

Here's an example from the OhQP who added a rover category in 2004.   
In 2004 there was 1 rover, in 2005 there were 4 rovers, in 2006 1  
rover and 2007 2 rovers.  One of the entrants in the rover category  
each year was the same station.  He wasn't a new addition to the QSO  
Party as he operated in other categories in prior years.  The other  
rovers weren't new participants either as they were people who  
normally participated in other categories.

Your request is something that should be taken to the MiQP committee.   
Once they rule on the topic, you should respect their decision.

73 Tim K9TM


On Apr 24, 2008, at 4:35 PM, Hank Greeb wrote:

> I'm putting in a plug for the contest committee to consider a rover
> category for 2009.  My opinion is that this would spice up the  
> contest,
> and allow more stations to work rare counties.  With mobiles, if
> propagation isn't right for the band(s) chosen in the 30 or so minutes
> of operation in a county, that's a dead county for many folks.  A  
> rover
> could set up within 600' of a four county intersection, and move  
> every 3
> or 4 hours from county to county, so that the 3 or 4 counties could be
> on the air in the afternoon when 40, 20, and lower wavelengths have  
> good
> propagation, and in the evening with 80/75 has shorter propagation.   
> Who
> knows?  If we could get enough rovers perhaps we could offer a Worked
> All Michigan Counties award as part of the award structure?
>
> I've also suggested that setting up within 600' of a 2, 3, or 4 county
> intersection as a rover and allowing it to count for 2, 3, or 4  
> counties
> (Such as is done for the Illinois QSO party, the Oklahoma QSO party,  
> and
> possibly others) might be an interesting twist on being a rover. I'd
> suggest the contest committee look at this possibility.....
>
> Now, I'll run for cover, because this is the 2nd, and possibly the  
> third
> time I've broached the subject, and I've suffered flak, sometimes
> severe, each time I've made the suggestion.
>
> 73 de n8xx Hg
>
> _______________________________________________
> MiQP-Mail mailing list
> MiQP-Mail at miqp.org
> http://mail.miqp.org/mailman/listinfo/miqp-mail_miqp.org