Mike,
There is precedent for combining jurisdictions into single sections: there
was a time when Georgia, South Carolina and Cuba were one section, as was
Utah-Wyoming.
Splitting up Georgia, SC and Cuba (aside from the Cuban revolution, of
course), had nothing to do with multipliers for SS but rather reorganizing
the ARRL's Field Services division to better administrate the various
sections.
The multipliers are sections: convince RAC to split Maritime into three
sections (NS. NB, PEI) and voila, you have two extra multipliers and zero
argument.
The sections don't exist to be multipliers, they just happen to be
multipliers in addition to being subsets of RAC and ARRL adminstration.
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 10/30/14 10:16 AM, "Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Ron,
> We're NOT special-that's my point exactly. We are SEPARATE PROVINCES.
> Tell me what US STATES are lumped together as a single multiplier?
> NONE, that's how many.
>
> Mike VE9AA (NB)
> ---- Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net> wrote:
>> So your argument is, for those contest that use ARRL/RAC sections for
>> multipliers, you do NOT want to use the MAR section designation, but your
>> provinces.
>>
>> Because some contests use the individual provinces as multipliers, therefore
>> all should, even though the Maritime section contains multiple provinces.
>>
>> And one of the justifications for this is that the Ontario SECTION was split
>> into 4 sections.
>>
>> Sorry. Your logic fails. (IMHO)
>>
>> Look, if you want to administratively split up the MAR section into separate
>> sections for each province, and can convince the RAC of that, go for it. I'm
>> all for it. And that would give you those extra multipliers by default.
>>
>> But otherwise, it just doesn't make sense. How would you write the rule?
>> "4. Multipliers. ARRL or RAC Sections.
>> 4a. Except for the Maritime section. They're special. "
>>
>> Sorry. Just can't see it.
>>
>> 73, ron w3wn
>>
>> On 10/30/14, Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA wrote:
>>
>> The following is from Al, VA1MM but I 100% support him. See my own (VE9AA)
>> comments below his:
>>
>>
>>
>> VA1MM:
>>
>>
>>
>> A group of us contesters here in the "MAR" section feel the time has come to
>> announce the end of the MAR section in not only ARRL contests but all
>> contests. When our Department of Communications (now Industry Canada)
>> granted us separate prefixes for New Brunswick (VE9), Nova Scotia (VE1) and
>> Prince Edward Island (VY2), they recognized they we were distinct Provinces
>> with enough Amateur Radio operators to support a distinct call sign. And as
>> multipliers go, why wouldn't you want to have three new districts to work
>> when multiplied by six bands you have a substantial increase in your scores.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have tried to weigh the pros and cons, the only con would be the contest
>> software not keeping up with the change or the operator not downloading the
>> newest version, but do we wait forever? Ontario (VE3) lead the way with
>> their divisional split, now it's time for the Maritimes to be recognized as
>> NS, NB and PEI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank-you, Al VA1MM/ VE1AWP (NS) Maritime Contest Club Member
>>
>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
>>
>> VE9AA, Mike says:
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been moaning and groaning about this very thing for years and years.
>> SOME ARRL contests force us to send MAR (a very antiquated section) and some
>> permit us to send NB, NS and PEI (the provinces where we are)
>>
>> Meanwhile, places like Ontario recently get 4 (count them) FOUR sections?
>> What the??? Do we not exist out here or what????
>>
>> What if we were to combine RI, DE and ME? Who in W1 would go for that
>> section>? \RIDEME\
>>
>>
>>
>> Prior to 1993, all NB, NS and PEI's were VE1's...*BUT*, News Flash> In 1993
>> us "VE1's" all got NEW distinct callsign prefixes
>>
>> ie: NB=VE9, NS=VE1 and PEI=VY2...there are very few left that kept their
>> original VE1 calls in NB or PEI. (the NS guys got to keep their VE1's)...
>>
>> We are distinct provinces, (have been for eons.) just as Maine, Rhode Island
>> and Delaware are. Maybe it made sense in the old days or whatever to have
>> us as one section as there are fewer hams here (and we were all VE1's) , but
>> I think you'll see as a fellow member of MCC also, that we are well
>> represented these days. As a point of interest, there are so many VE1's that
>> they also have a VA1 prefix to choose from. If it's based on activity (I
>> know it's not) there are certainly ARRL and RAC sections with less activity
>> than NB, NS and PEI.
>>
>> Even in the RAC contests we send "NB,NS and PE" so saying you "follow RAC"
>> does not hold water, nor does it even make sense 2+ decades later.
>>
>>
>>
>> I normally try to boycott most contests that force us to send "MAR" as a
>> silent protest. Probably nobody notices but there are others like me out
>> here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Get with the times ARRL, CQP and a very select few others.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know who's attention we need to get, but help us out. Rattle some
>> chains. Send emails to those you know,
>>
>> "RAC" is not contest oriented. Why we have to follow that structure (but
>> only for some contests) is beyond me !?!?
>>
>>
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike VE9AA (proudly in NB)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>>
>> Keswick Ridge, NB
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|