It has been over a month since I asked NN1N (who I
believe is in the equivalent position as N7NG was before),
if the DXCC accreditation rules only applied to DXpeditions.
W5OV was adamant that this is the case (though not if he
were to go to V2, I believe he said - would that not be a
DXpedition, someone travelling to some other entity to
operate?).
If DXCC is the dog's bollocks of operating awards, then it
really should not matter if the station credit a contact is
claimed for was operated by a resident or a visitor to the
place, or so I would have thought - that the station was
where it was claimed to be & was legit & a contact was
actually made with that station seem important to integrity
of the award regardless of who is operating on the DX side.
I have yet to receive an answer from Dave.
KR2Q had suggested the whole published logs debate
was a bit of a urinating match (between W4TV & W5OV,
I guess), but it dried up after my post below about the
context thing that KR2Q I guess was saying supported
W5OV's position (a coincidence, no doubt).
The thing about published logs is that some of us -
those on the DX side (in particular, full-time resident not-
exactly-garden variety DX) work lots of people in contests
who don't give a rat's arse about the contest... they want
to work us for some award, predominately DXCC.
Published logs, with the potential of rendering all those
contacts useless for DXCC, removes the _only_ reason
these casuals call us DX.
It is very sad that the problem with contest cheating
has forced the CQ WW DX Contest Committee into
doing something that is so detrimental to some
participants & not others - about as well thought out
as KR2Q's "context" argument.
73, VR2/KBrett7Graham/p.
>Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:46:17 +0000
>To: CQ-contest list
>From: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL rule...the introduction (aka CONTEXT)
>
>KR2Q shared with us http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/06/0818/
>
>If I'm not mistaken, 2006-08-16 would have been some
>time before CQ WW published the logs of every single
>entrant from 2006. Like a little over a year.
>
>According to http://www.arrl.org/?artid=7109 N7NG
>left the ARRL as of 2007-01-16. This is a bit more than
>a half a year before CQ WW first published logs.
>
>Both the rule change & whatever N7NG might have said
>were well before the publishing of the logs of every single
>entrant of the most popular radiosporting event.
>
>The context in which the rule change was made was
>_not_ the publishing of so many logs - including quite a
>few that folks might want to claim credit for contacting -
>but some far fewer number (something like several
>thousandths) of DXpedition logs that went beyond what
>was necessary for one to establish that they were in the
>log for a given band/mode.
>
>And unless N7NG was asked specifically about the
>publishing of every single log submitted for CQ WW,
>then his answer appears to be have taken quite some
>ways out of context.
>
>73, ex-VR2BrettGraham/p.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|