CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Principles behind multipliers

To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Principles behind multipliers
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:35:50 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
     In the discussion of whether or not the District of Columbia should be a 
separate multiplier from the state of Maryland in the NCJ North American
QSO Party, all sorts of rationales for multiplier status were suggested,
including suggestions if DC were made a multiplier, all individual parcels
of federal land should be separate multipliers, too.  In my opinion, the real 
principles for multiplier choices should be something along the lines of:

1) Complete coverage of multiplier target area - at least for all land-based
   stations.  

2) Easy for entrants to figure out their own mult status and what they need
   to send in an exchange.

3) Easy for entrants to figure out the mult status of every station they 
   work during the contest.

The NCJ North American QSO Party currently meets all of these principles 
except that it could be improved with the clarification of what state 
abbreviation stations in DC (which very clearly counts for the same 
multiplier as MD) should be sending.  There are other contests, however, 
that need more work.

The NCJ North American Sprint violates the first principle, as DC is 
effectively a hole in the otherwise complete geographic continuity of 
North American multipliers.  I know that in practice the policy of the 
contest organizers is to treat DC the same as MD (consistent with the 
NAQP) but in point of fact the actual written rules are deficient when 
it comes to DC.  

The CQ World Wide RTTY Contest is similarly deficient, as DC falls through 
the specification of states, provinces, and ARRL/WAE countries.  DC is in 
fact the only land-based location on the planet in the CQWW RTTY where 
stations count for just a zone multiplier and nothing else - which is 
surely not the intention of the contest organizers but rather an oversight
that should be corrected (either by making DC its own mult or attaching it 
to the MD mult.)

By principle 1, we don't need to make Big Bend National Park (for example) 
its own multiplier even if we were to make DC a separate multiplier, 
because the park's location inside the Texas (state) or West Texas 
(section) multiplier already ensures geographic completeness.  It is 
already inside a member of the set whose union completely covers the 
target multiplier area.  The park's status as federal land is completely 
irrelevant to the physical geography problem posed in the selection of 
relevant multipliers.

You might be able to make a persuasive argument based on principles 2 and 3
that DC should always be a separate multiplier in the case of contests where
the W/VE multipliers are states and provinces.  If every contest treated 
the district in a consistent manner, it would end some amount of confusion
and make everyone's lives slightly easier.

Personally, I don't really care one way or another.  It might be nice not 
make newcomers or casual contesters have to struggle with DC's status with 
each new contest they try, but on the other hand it's not like we should 
have every contest be exactly the same - variety is a good thing.  The
most important thing, in my opinion, is completeness and clarity in the 
rules.

-- 
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>