The way I look at the recent rule tweak is that the ARRL is trying to recognize
evolving technology and trends in a manner harmonious to what's already been
acceptable under the DXCC rules.
Hasn't it been acceptable for a while now to go to the opposite side of the
country, work DX, and have it "count"? Hasn't it been tolerated to go to
someone's better-equipped station, work a rare one, and get credit?
As long as there's no deception of where RF is being emitted and received, the
rule tweak seems plausible.
I've got DXCC and DXCC Challenge plaques hanging on my shack wall. They bring
a smile to my face, and I'd rather not let any frustration I could feel about
cheaters spoil the fun I had in qualifying for them, or the incentive they give
in guiding some further play on HF and topband.
But, if there are many people upset by the perceived unfairness of remote
controlled stations, intra-country travel, and/or station sharing...perhaps the
answer would be to call for the introduction of a new award. Call it DX2CC,
operating with the same general principles as DXCC, but requiring all contacts
to be made on stations built/maintained by or specifically for the ham, with
contacts occurring within a given entity and within a certain radius. It'd be
unfair to impose such rules on a go-forward basis on DXCC, but you could start
fresh with a new award and more challenging rules.
I'd chase such awards.
(But who am I kidding; I chase just about everything anyway.)
--
Michael Adams | N1EN | mda@n1en.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike
Fatchett
Sent: Friday, 27 February, 2015 11:01
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Remote now DXCC??
Why are we centered on remote operations dirtying up the DXCC program?
DXCC is far from clean now and from the limited amount of reading available
people have been scamming DXCC long before I was licensed in 1978.
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|