CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: [N1MM] New RAC (ARRL contest) sections

To: Paul Hudson <va3cwa@gmail.com>, "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: [N1MM] New RAC (ARRL contest) sections
From: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:41:14 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Paul,

I'm afraid the logic of your argument might not quite hold water.

ALL ARRL sections exist purely for administrative purposes. None exists for
contesting reasons. That each section is also an SS multiplier is simply a
fringe benefit.

There's more to creating a section than saying 'You're a section.'

The logic also falls apart when you consider the history of ARRL Sections.
Every time a new section was added before, it became by default a multiplier
in SS. California wasn't always LAX, SD, SJV and so on, and Florida wasn't
always NFL, SFL and WCF. WTX is also relatively new. Should ARRL have
ignored every new section each time a section was added?

The SS rules say the multipliers are ARRL and RAC sections: the new sections
are RAC sections. I fail to see why they shouldn't be multipliers too.

So a sweep got a bit harder. Big whoop.

73, kelly
ve4xt


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

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