Now we're knee-deep in silliness.
I've lived in Washington, DC for 24 years, and have operated the amateur
satellites and HF bands for 20 of those. I'm a relatively active
contester, both single-op and multi-op from my QTH. My station is
modest by all standards (roof-mounted small tri-bander and wires on a
40x140 ft lot).
I contest because I enjoy contesting and all that it brings to ham
radio... technical and physical challenges, camaraderie and competition,
certainly not because I'm going to win any prize. There are far better
operators here in the District than me.
While others in the District do participate operate in the NAQPs, I have
in the past, but do not. I do not live in Maryland, but rather live in a
jurisdiction that is not represented on the same, presumably level,
playing field. I have in the past. I also was a regular in the CD
Parties that preceded the NAQPs.
Will I operate the NAQPs if DC is added as a multiplier. Yes. Can I
speak for other contesters living in or having access to stations in the
District? Of course not.
What benefit is there to me? Other than that I can have fun playing in
the sandbox with everyone else, nothing other than the pleasure of
giving someone another QSO and maybe even another mult. Same goes for
every other contest I participate in. I don't participate in those that
are fun to be in and have been known to quite when it isn't fun anymore.
I don't have need to prove anything to anyone.
What benefit is it to the contesting community at large? Another
multiplier to chase, another challenge.
I suspect those in the new Canadian and Mexican multiplier entities
would say the same, as do those in the upper-plains (ND, SD) and
northwest (ID, MT) who are often represented by one or two stations, if
that.
I agree that it's the decision of the contest sponsors to do as they
like. I simply don't understand their rationale for not making this rule
change. I suppose that's because none of them have said a word on this
issue during this discussion.
I propose that we end the discussion here and wait for the NAQP managers
to respond.
Their silence is and has been deafening.
73,
Eric W3DQ
--------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:34:06 -0700
From: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:57:25PM -0400, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
>>> Put it to you this way, why WOULDN'T you want DC as a mult?
>> How will this improve the NAQP?
>>
> Are you really being that obtuse?
That indeed may be the case.
> More multipliers, more QSOs, more challenge, more activity.
Six more possible multipliers.
Is it going to be a challenge to work DC?
As far as QSOs go, I would expect anyone that lives in DC and will do
this contest once DC is a multiplier is already enjoying this
wonderful contest. So I do not see how it will add contacts or are you
saying that DC stations will only operate it if they are
multipliers?
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|