[MiQP-Mail] Rover category

[David Pruett]

Tim,

Thank you for that clear explanation about rovers.  I could not have 
said it better myself.

Hank, the MiQP committee has discussed a rover category previously at 
the urging of K8MR.  We did not elect to create such a category for the 
very reasons Tim describes; i.e., the lack of significant popularity in 
the OhQP.  And as Tim describes, the present rules allow for fixed 
station operation in multiple counties (however it does not provide for 
combining into a single points total).

Which does not mean that the topic will never be revisited.  It's not a 
bad idea, and more fixed station operation in rare counties would be a 
good thing.  However, interest in a rover category must be demonstrated 
first, not just talked about. I'm not aware of anyone chomping at the 
bit to go do it.

Creating a new category generally means additional awards (plaques or 
certificates) with additional expense.  While the current MiQP awards 
program is at, or very close to, break-even the current economic climate 
makes it hard to raise sponsorship for additional awards.  Even the new 
"Top Michigan EOC Station" plaque was re-purposed with the same sponsor 
for 2008.

73,

Dave Pruett, K8CC
MiQP Chairman


K9TM wrote:
> 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
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MiQP-Mail mailing list
> MiQP-Mail at miqp.org
> http://mail.miqp.org/mailman/listinfo/miqp-mail_miqp.org
>
>
>