CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules and the District of Columbia

To: "Eric Rosenberg" <wd3q@starpower.net>,<CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules and the District of Columbia
From: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 23:17:14 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I think we need to slow this bus down a little. Whether or not you want DC, as 
a section, will become mute if it is allowed in even one contest, it will 
become a mult in every contest. Our domestic contests have finally stabilized. 
We were adding mults to our domestic contests, year after year for several 
years, creating problems for everyone from the contest sponsors to the software 
writers on down to the participants.
As has already been suggested why not every Indian reservation, after all they 
have cigarette stores, gaming casinos, and are considered sovereign.
IMHO we need to quickly, and gently, put the lid back on this can of worms.
73

MAL             N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eric Rosenberg 
  To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 18:05
  Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules and the District of Columbia


  Thanks to those who have taken the time to reply to my email regarding
  the multiplier status of the District of Columbia in the various NAQPs. 
  The dialog has been stimulating, interesting, and somewhat disappointing.
  That notwithstanding, it's time to move on to the next level.  

  One respondent suggested: 

  "Maybe your post to CQ Contest should be revised to:  

     I would like the NAQP to add DC as a multiplier."

  That's been my issue from the start.  I have no interest in having the
  District become an ARRL Section, nor have the District be counted as a DX
  entity.  

  My interest is that for this series of contests ONLY, where it seems that
  every other US governed entity, be it a state or other territorial body,
  has a separate identity, the District of Columbia be treated as a
  separate entity, too.  

  As there appears to be no official process for submitting this request, I
  have taken the liberty to air this publicly.  I accept the notion that
  the governing body of the NAQPs may not want to modify the rules.  If
  that's the case, I would like to know why, and too, if there is any
  recourse or method to appeal their decision.  I don't think that's asking
  too much.  

  One correspondent made the comment that he doesn't enter a contest
  because he's a rare multiplier, rather that they're fun.  While I
  wholeheartedly agree that my main criteria for participation in any given
  activity is that it must be fun, being treated equally certainly adds to
  the fun factor.  Those of us who live and/or work here in the District do
  try and drum up activity and local competition, and have, as a result,
  seen stations previously dormant come back to life. Giving folks another
  positive reason to enter a given contest does increase activity, which is
  something I believe we in the contesting community want (it was certainly
  mentioned at the 2005 Dayton Contest Dinner).  That increased activity
  and inherent competition adds to the fun! 

  Finally, and to reiterate the comment above, I would like the NAQP to add
  DC as a multiplier.  How do we go about this?

  Thank you to those who've sent me comments on this issue. As I've
  discovered over the years, the contesting community is both passionate
  and articulate... and certainly willing to speak it's mind! 

  73, 
  Eric W3DQ
  Washington, DC 
  _______________________________________________
  CQ-Contest mailing list
  CQ-Contest@contesting.com
  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>