[NLRS] Results of rover polling

[W0ZQ at aol.com]

Hello NLRS land.   
 
As promised, here is the results of the rover survey that I sent out  earlier 
this week.   I am still taking input if you have not had a  chance to respond 
and would like to do so.   There have  been 17 responses where all but three 
have been from Dakota Division.   

I first asked about your roving history.  Here is the question  and your 
response:
a)   I have never roved and I am not  interested in it (N = 0).
b)   I have never roved, but I have  thought about trying it some time. (N = 
7)
c)   I rove on some  occasions.  (N = 4)
d)   I rove often.  (N =  5)

For the following seven questions, the rating scale is 1 = Strongly  
Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly  
Agree.   

1)  Do you think that captive roving is an issue  in the Dakota Division ?   
Captive roving is where a rover exclusively  works one station.
Results:    Average = 2.1.   Ten  disagree or strongly disagree, four are 
neutral, and two agree or strongly  agree.
6 = Strongly  Disagree
4 =  Disagree
4 = Neither Agree nor  Disagree
2 =  Agree
0 = Strongly  Agree.

2)  Do you think that the rules should be modified to support  the family 
rule for roving ?   Currently, the General VHF Rules  exclude this.
Results:  Average 3.8.   Two disagree or  strongly disagree, three are 
neutral, and eleven agree or strongly  agree.
1 = Strongly  Disagree
1 =  Disagree
3 = Neither Agree nor  Disagree
7 =  Agree
4 = Strongly Agree.  

3)  Do you think that the rules should be modified to allow all  rovers to 
use APRS ?   APRS contacts themselves would not count for  contest points.
Results:  Average 3.3.   Five disagree or  strongly disagree, three are 
neutral, and eight agree or strongly  agree.
1 = Strongly  Disagree
4 =  Disagree
3 = Neither Agree nor  Disagree
5 =  Agree
3 = Strongly Agree.  

4)  Do you think that the rules should be modified to allow all  rovers to 
include a nonparticipating driver ?   The suggested change  is aimed at safety.
Results:  Average 4.1.   One disagree or  strongly disagree, three are 
neutral, and eleven agree or strongly  agree.
0 = Strongly  Disagree
1 =  Disagree
3 = Neither Agree nor  Disagree
5 =  Agree
6 = Strongly  Agree.

5)  Do you think that the rules should be changed to allow  for a limited 
rover class ?  A limited rover would follow the same rules as  a Rover but would 
compete with no more than any four bands of their  choosing.
Results:  Average 4.5.   There were no disagree or  strongly disagree, one 
neutral, and fifteen agree or strongly  agree.
0 = Strongly  Disagree
0 =  Disagree
1 = Neither Agree nor  Disagree
6 =  Agree
9 = Strongly  Agree.

6)  To address issues around team roving and grid circling,  for the rover 
and limited rover class, do you favor these proposed rules (vote  for each one).
6a)  For rover to rover contacts, for any given band,  once a contact has 
been made those two rovers may not make contact again from  any adjoining grid(s) 
for 30 minutes.
Results:  Average 2.6.    Seven disagree or strongly disagree, three are 
neutral, and four agree or  strongly agree. 
3 = Strongly  Disagree
4 =  Disagree
3 = Neither Agree nor  Disagree
4 =  Agree
0 = Strongly  Agree.
6b)  If a rover makes more than 300 contacts, no more than 50% of  their 
total can be made with other rovers.
Results:  Average  3.1.   Six disagree or strongly disagree, one is neutral, 
and seven  agree or strongly agree.
3 =  Strongly Disagree
3 =  Disagree
1 = Neither Agree nor  Disagree
4 =  Agree
3 = Strongly  Agree.

7)  As rules may be created to exclude or significantly limit  grid circling 
and team roving from the rover and limited rover class, do you  favor creating 
an unlimited rover category where these two rules would NOT apply  ?   At 
this time, the suggestion is that the unlimited rover scores  would not be 
included in club scoring but limited and rover scores would  be.
Results:  Average 3.4.   Five disagree or strongly  disagree, one is neutral, 
and ten agree or strongly  agree.
3 = Strongly  Disagree
2 =  Disagree
1 = Neither Agree nor  Disagree
6 =  Agree
4 = Strongly  Agree.

Summary:
I will be bold and make the following Dakota Div.  claims.
1)   Captive rovers are a non-issue, current rules are OK  (no change).
2)   Would like to see rules changed to allow family  (rule) rovers.
3)   Would like to see rules changed to allow APRS  for all rovers.
4)   Would like to see rules changed that would  increase the number of rover 
classes, perhaps to include limited and unlimited  classes.
5)   Would like to see rules changed to add a  nonparticipating driver 
(although there is still discussion on if this can be  integrated with # 6 below so 
that one-man rovers can still exist and  compete).
6)   Of the two proposed rules that attempt to limit team  roving and grid 
circling in the rover and limited rover class (but allow it in  unlimited), the 
300 Q - 50% rule was preferred over the 30 minute  rule.   However there is 
still room for discussion and  improvement.    


73, Jon
W0ZQ 
 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.