[NLRS] Results of rover polling

[Clare Jarvis]

Tnx for the feedback.

73 Clare



On Saturday 05 May 2007 10:29 am, W0ZQ at aol.com wrote:
> 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. _______________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> NLRS at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs

-- 
Mr. Clare Jarvis
Jarvis Computer Software
PO Box 1264
Winona MN 55987-7264

(507) 454 2575

Reply to: jarvis at jarviscomputer.com