In a word, legitimacy.
States, provinces, DXCC entities, sections, oblasts, shires, prefixes, CQ
zones, ITU zones, etc. all offer the appearance of basic "fairness" when
applied equally to everyone.
Yes, there are other "unfairness" factors, but they aren't perceived to have
been purposefully created by the contest sponsors to favor or disfavor.
73 & Happy Halloween to those who "celebrate" witches & goblins,
Dave K3ZJ
> On Oct 31, 2014, at 5:37 AM, Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> When I get puzzled or confused, which is happening more and more often, I
> consult the Doctor I see most often - a proctologist - for advice.
>
> He opted for Proctions
>
> Seems to me, though, that a contest sponsor can define mults any way that he
> likes without being required in any way to observe boundaries defined by
> anyone else, be they any level of government or. Obviously the boundaries
> need to be easy for contesters to understand or the contest will die but I
> believe the hybrid identified by Ward would work just fine.
>
> For SS to be credible it must be possible to achieve a sweep, at least in
> most years. Looks like there are enough contesters in the, ahem, MAR
> provinces to take care of this.
>
> I can see no downside to this proposal for RAC, ARRL or the contesting
> community.
>
> 73, Jim VE7FO
>
>> On 2014-10-30 15:48, Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA wrote:
>> Ward,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your always very well thought out, reasonable and
>> consistently entertaining emails. It brings a smile to my face quite
>> honestly, to see an email from you in my inbox (even if I am hassling
>> you for something- OK, we won’t go there_)
>>
>>
>>
>> I just replied to Dave K1ZZ and apologized for my blunder calling the
>> NCJ QSO Parties and Sprints “ARRL Sponsored”…correctly they are ARRL
>> published but not sponsored. My bad. I probably should’ve realized
>> that, but all this MAR business has me slightly on the defensive.
>> (hi). I am taking a beating by a small select few who seem to think I
>> am asking for special treatment. Indeed, all we are asking for is to
>> be treated EQUALLY.
>>
>>
>>
>> If Rhode Island, Maine and Mass shared a section I would never dream
>> of even ASKING for a change. I don’t belive in special treatment.
>>
>> I just ask for our actual real provinces to be treated like every
>> other ARRL section for the purposes of Sweepstakes and a select few
>> other contests.
>>
>> Most contests (and ARRL contests) are on board. Every State in the
>> Union has at least one section for Sweeps, (and many have various
>> sections) and yet we continue to be lumped together – why ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Although I certainly cannot speak for all contesters here in these
>> heretotherfore metioned netheregions, I think the general sentiment
>> here in MAR…err, NB, NS and PEI is to leave all the current
>> “sections” as they are, but to forget they ever heard the term MAR
>> and just make it NB, NS and PEI. We don’t have a problem with VE3
>> having 4 sections or California having however many it is that they
>> have.
>>
>>
>>
>> The stickler is that no other current States/Provinces have been
>> lumped together to create a section. New sections keep appearing
>> every so often (wasn’t WCF not too long ago and then the 4 VE3
>> sections), yet all us MCCers continue to be “one section” even though
>> the club itself is 30 strong and there are many out here that are not
>> in MCC. We can definitely hold our own. VY2ZM, VE9HF, VE1OP, VE1RGB,
>> VE1ZA, VY2LI, VE9ML, myself , small pistol VE9AA and many to name
>> only a few. I am sure all those calls are quite familiar to those
>> reading this.
>>
>>
>>
>> ND, VY0/VE8 or EB are sections with less representations by a long
>> shot.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your list looks perfect to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Who do I send a quarter to so a phone call can take place between W1
>> and VE4 to even consider our most humble and long overdue request?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike VE9AA
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>>
>> Keswick Ridge, NB
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Ward Silver [mailto:hwardsil@gmail.com] Sent: October 30, 2014
>> 7:27 PM To: Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA; 'Cary Rubenfeld'; 'Ed
>> Richardson'; fdavis@nfld.net; garybartlett@accesswave.ca;
>> k5zd@cqww.com; kx9x@arrl.org; k1ar@contesting.com Cc: 'Bill Lester';
>> 'JP LeBlanc'; n2ic@arrl.net; Richard Ferch; ve1dt@infinichron.com;
>> 'Peter Csanky'; 'Phil Irons'; 'Rick VE9HF Williams';
>> ve1js@ns.sympatico.ca; Ve4baw@rac.ca; 'Rick Williams' Subject: Re:
>> FW: [CQ-Contest] Move to disband MAR section in Canada (for
>> contesting)
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Point of order - the ARRL does not sponsor any of the NCJ contests.
>> The ARRL publishes NCJ but it is a relatively independent entity (not
>> a DXCC entity) and makes its own rules.
>>
>> I looked at the NCJ Sprint rules (http://ncjweb.com/Sprint-Rules.pdf)
>> and multipliers for Canada are first described in Scoring Rule 10 as
>> "provinces" but the multiplier list then proceeds to combine all five
>> of the Maritime prefixes (VE1/9/VY2/VO1/VO2) into a group which is
>> really a section. Perhaps that can be fixed - I'll drop the editors
>> a note.
>>
>> As to the ARRL contests, there are only two that use the MAR section
>> as a multiplier (Sweepstakes and 160 Meters) based on RAC sections.
>> Field Day does, as well, but "it's not a contest" :-) All remaining
>> ARRL contests use provinces more or less correctly. True that the
>> ARRL does not have a consistent policy across contests for counting
>> Canadian multipliers but it is pretty consistent in applying a
>> specific contest's rules.
>>
>> If the rules of Sweepstakes were changed to count Canadian provinces,
>> then the four Ontario sections would then have to be re-combined into
>> a single VE3 multiplier. I'm sure the Ontarians would not be
>> pleased. And the three northern provinces (Yukon, Northwest
>> Territories, and Nunavut) would also have to be split up and counted
>> separately. Given the lack of VE8 and VYØ stations, I'm sure the
>> collectors of Clean Sweep mugs would not be pleased, either :-)
>>
>> Am I correct in ascertaining that what you're really asking for is a
>> Canadian multiplier list neither entirely section nor province, but
>> rather a hybrid: VE1, VE9, VY2, VO1, VO2, VE2, VE3-ONN, VE3-ONE,
>> VE3-ONS, VE3-GTA, VE4, VE5, VE6, VE7, and NT (VY1-VE8-VYØ). What do
>> we call them - secvinces, proctions, or what?
>>
>> I have no power to effect any of this - I just want to understand
>> what you and fellow Mari-you-know-whatters are actually asking for in
>> the grand scheme of things.
>>
>> 73, Ward N0AX
>>
>> On 10/30/2014 4:58 PM, Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA wrote:
>>
>> The ARRL sponsored NCJ sprints require MAR, whereas the ARRL NCJ NA
>> QSO parties allow Provinces.
>>
>> Some ARRL contests require MAR, whereas some require NB, NS & PEI.
>> There seems to be little in the way of consistency.
>>
>> Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of worldwide contests,
>> including 90% of state run QSO parties allow “NB, NS or PEI.”
>>
>> (The California QSO party being the holdout)…..folks are usually
>> tickled when they work VE9 for a new mult.
>>
>>
>>
>> The continuous staunch retort from (my good friends at) the ARRL
>> seems to say “We follow RAC sections”, and apparently that’s that-end
>> of discussion. . …however if you look down the list of ARRL contests
>> very carefully, you’ll see only a percentage of them do. (50%?) I
>> don’t know – I would have to count them. Does it matter if I said 40%
>> or 65% really?
>>
>>
>>
>> Even the hugely popular RAC contests here at home say “send your
>> province”……I have sent “NB” in every Canada Day or Canada Winter
>> contest that I have entered since “RAC” was the CARF. I live in NB
>> not a fictitious “Maritime Province”.
>>
>>
>>
>> By saying “we follow RAC”……no, you really don’t. You only follow RAC
>> sections for *S-O-M-E* of the ARRL sponsored contests. ( I reckon not
>> even most of them)
>>
>>
>>
>> I still also stand by the fact that no other States or Provinces are
>> lumped together with other States or Provinces to create a section.
>> (DC is the exception, but it is not a State ) I have new information
>> given to me today that once upon a time Georgia, SC and Cuba (of all
>> places) was a section, but that must surely been before I was born,
>> or at least the Bay of Pigs affair.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey, I don’t expect anyone to jump right up and change things
>> overnight, but look, I’ve been a VE9 for 21 years (and a ham much
>> longer than that). I am not CURRENTLY a RAC member, but have been in
>> the past. I was even a volunteer for the RAC VHF frequency committee
>> for VE3DS and certainly do my part to represent VE9 (NB) in the RAC
>> contests out of an unwritten devotion to RAC even though admittedly
>> they are not my favorite contests.
>>
>>
>>
>> Usually I feel my voice is never heard and over time I will let my
>> RAC membership lapse.
>>
>>
>>
>> All I am saying is that (for whatever reason) we have multiple
>> sections in Ontario and every other Province has their own section.
>> Isn’t it time for the ARRL to get onboard with 95% of other worldwide
>> contests and recognize that it’s time to recognize that ALL contests
>> under the ARRL banner should treat us equally out here?
>>
>>
>>
>> It sure would be nice to hear from Geoff Bowden on this issue. I
>> have RAC folks (VE9MY and VY2LI) who’ve heard our concerns. We have
>> RAC representation in every province including NB, NS and PEI (and
>> Newfoundland/Labrador). I am not entirely certain where they stand,
>> but if it takes someone from RAC to initiate a change or someone from
>> the ARRL like N3KN or K1ZZ to pick up the phone and call Manitoba and
>> speak with VE4BAW, to see what needs to be done I’d gladly pay the
>> long distance charges. I see people at ARRL and RAC nodding, but
>> nobody is even CONSIDERING our request and nobody is even talking.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike VE9AA “NB”
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
>>
>> Keswick Ridge, NB
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Gerry Hull [mailto:gerry@yccc.org] Sent: October 30, 2014 4:31
>> PM To: Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA Cc: CQ-Contest; ve5sf@rac.ca
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Move to disband MAR section in Canada (for
>> contesting)
>>
>>
>>
>> As a ex-pat Maritimer, I'd agree, from a contest perspective, it
>> would be wonderful to have the individual provinces as multipliers.
>>
>> I'd hazard to guess, though, that the decision that drove Ontario to
>> have separate sections was not driven by contesting, but by the
>>
>> size of the amateur population and administrative needs.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd say that boycotting contests that use MAR as the multiplier will
>> hurt your cause -- IF those in power were to consider contest
>> activity one of the
>>
>> factors in breaking up MAR into provinces, boycotting current
>> contests would definitely hurt!
>>
>>
>>
>> So, count me in support of the effort, but let me counsel you to
>> PARTICIPATE in ARRL contests!
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's hoping I work a bunch of MARs in SS CW -- I'll be VE1RM/3 or
>> CG1RM/3 from ONE. (Ottawa is a closer drive than even St. John!)
>>
>>
>>
>> 73, Gerry W1VE
>>
>> Also: VE1RM, VY2CDX, VE9XDX, VO1WIN
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA
>> <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|