DC is already a mult in the ARRL 10M Contest. So the can of worms is
already out of the bottle (just to mix a metaphor).
I'm surprised at the knee-jerk reactions to Eric's suggestion.
73, Pete N4ZR
At 07:17 PM 5/31/2005, 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.
>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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|