On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:17:14PM -0000, N7MAL wrote:
> 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.
Eric was not arguing that DC should become a separate ARRL section from
MDC section, and its status in the ARRL FIeld Organization structure
is completly disconnected from whether or not it can or should be considered
a contest multiplier.
Let's take a look at some of the HF contests that use state/section
multipliers:
ARRL 10 Meter Contest: DC is its own multiplier
ARRL RTTY Roundup DC is its own multiplier
ARRL International DX Contest: DC is its own multiplier
CQ World Wide 160 Contest: DC is its own multiplier
ARRL 160 Meter Contest: DC is considered part of the MDC multiplier
ARRL November Sweepstakes: DC is considered part of the MDC multiplier
NCJ North American QSO Party: DC is considered part of the MDC multiplier
NCJ North American Sprint: DC status unclear
CQ World Wide RTTY: DC status unclear
The idea that adding DC as a multiplier to one contest would somehow
force it to be added as a multiplier in every other contest is just silly.
DC is already its own multiplier in four very popular HF competitions.
The problem of "adding mults to our domestic contests, year after year for
several years" relates to only two contests - the ARRL November Sweepstakes
and the ARRL 160 Meter Contest, whose multipliers are based on ARRL/RAC
sections. But some contests use states rather than sections.
If you want consistency, arguably DC should be its own multiplier in any
contest where U.S. states and Canadian provinces are the W/VE multipliers,
and it should be a part of MDC in contests where ARRL/RAC sections are the
W/VE multipliers. In that case, DC should become its own multiplier in
the NCJ North American QSO Party, the NCJ North American Sprint, and
the CQ World Wide RTTY Contest. But in any event, the NCJ and CQ should
clarify DC's multiplier status in their contests where it is unclear.
> 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
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|