> 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.
Based on this, DC is fully contained within Maryland even though
it is separately administered just as Big Bend National Park is
administered separately from Texas.
> 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.
In only care as it relates to the "multipliers for the sake of
multipliers." The legitimate bases for multipliers in general
purpose contests are: 1) states and provinces, 2) call areas,
3) zones, 4) grids/fields, 5) "countries" (DXCC). Specialty
contests might use: 1) Counties (state QSO parties), 2) Islands
(IOTA), 3) Sections (Sweepstakes), etc. I certainly do not see
where DC fits as a multiplier under any rational criteria.
When it comes to NAQP, I would expect to see Mexican provinces
added to the multiplier list long before DC.
... Joe, K4IK
PS. Add 4U1WB and foreign embasies/consulates to the list of
"entities" that should qualify as multipliers if DC is
made a multiplier in NAQP.
CQ-Contest mailing list