The reaction of the DXing community to new technology over the years has been
extremely interesting to observe. Some ops are early
adopters, applying every bleeding-edge technology available that isn't
explicitly prohibited by "the rules". At the other extreme
are ops who effectively camp on the technology available at the time they
became DXers, and argue that any use of
subsequently-developed new technology would diminish the value of DXCC awards.
Vigorous (and sometimes nasty) debates across this
spectrum are as old as DXing, and will likely never end.
The ARRL is in the unenviable position of having to keep the DXCC program
"attractive" in the face of relentless technical change
and the broad range of DXer "attitudes" described above. To make things more
interesting, they are human, and thus occasionally make
mistakes. It is the nature of DXing award programs that some mistakes cannot be
corrected, at least not until time machines become
available.
At the root of all of this is our nature to compete. If DXCC were purely a set
of personal achievement awards, then each op would
choose his or her "technology ground rules", and sally forth accordingly. Some
DXers do just that. However,
< http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-standings>
isn't entitled "DXCC Standings" for no reason. Some of us compete, and compete
hard, fueling demands for a "level playing field".
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that competitive DXers will never be happy.
Someone else will always have an unfair advantage,
because short of requiring *all* DXers to live within the same flat 200 km
circle and use identical rigs/ants/apps, the DXCC playing
field can never be leveled.
My advice? Don't suffer in silence, convey constructive suggestions to your
ARRL representatives. But when the DXCC rules change or
don't change, recognize that you are one of a large, diverse community that
cannot possibly all be simultaneously pleased.
DX Is!
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|