NN3W writes:
> >> The differences are pretty definitive, and D.C. holds a
> >> unique position worthy of multiplier recognition.
> >
> > I do not agree that DC holds a unique position worthy of
> > recognition as a multiplier. The multipliers in NAQP are
> > DXCC entities plus US States and Canadian provinces. DC
> > does not qualify on any of those criteria.
> >
> Fine, settled. In the upcoming NAQPs and Sprints, no station
> from the District of Columbia is allowed to compete, as it is
> neither a U.S.state nor a DXCC entity nor a multiplier. Is
> that acceptable to you? Does that seem reasonable?
Nothing I said prevents them from participating. It is entirely
reasonable to keep them with Maryland. NAQP is the descendent of
the old "CD Parties" where multiplies were based on Sections.
> > DC is considered part of Maryland for the WAS program and
> > is also counted as Maryland (MDC section, specifically) for
> > SS.
> >
> And DC is considered as a separate multiplier in other ARRL
> sponsored contests (i.e., ARRL DX, ARRL 10). So, what is
> arbitrary in one sphere, is not so in others.
So? NAQP is the successor to the old CD parties which were
based on the Field Organization structure (sections). There
is still no imperative to change it. For the record, I also
believe there is no justification for separate DC multipliers
in ARRL DX, ARRL 10, etc. and I objected to making DC a separate
multiplier in FQP (even though it only effects in state stations.
By the way DC is not a multiplier - it's sections - in ARRL 160.
> A two word change will do nothing to denegrate the operation of
> the contest. To the contary, as most people here agree, it
> will indeed likely enhance it.
There is no benefit in making the change other than for the
political aims of a limited number of DC residents. Contests
with large numbers of small, relatively rare multipliers tend
to be frustrating (and confusing) to new contesters and casual
participants. Adding another small, rare multiplier is an
overall negative for most contests.
> Just for historical perspective, did you object to the
> splitting up of the Canadian Maritimes for purposes of NAQP?
That happened while I was inactive but I would have opposed it
on the same historical grounds (CD Parties -> NAQP and CD Parties
were based on sections).
73,
... Joe, W4TV
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|