On 09/19/2012 08:33 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
Maybe we will need two versions of 160m DXCC -
one of which specifically states "SSB and CW only" or somesuch!
That's a good suggestion. It really should be one award for the case where a
human operator copies the signal, a man and his radio, and another
certificate where a machine actually copies the signal, a man reading the
text decoded and printed on a machine.
This fits with the trend to make rewards in life increasingly less dependent
on human effort, patience, and skill, and those who prefer to do it with
human involvement. There should be two clear classes.
Awards fairness is the primary "issue" for me and it is the reason I
came back to 160/HF after many years chasing DX on VHF/UHF EME.
After digital modes largely took over that world, those of us who
were stalwart CW (and/or SSB) operators argued for mode-specific
awards. That would have made the difference between staying or going
for some of us. But ARRL was strongly opposed, as were most digital
operators who insisted on leaving things as they are. Most were
vehemently opposed to mode-specific awards. It obviously was and
remains a lost battle.
At least on HF we have CW *or* SSB awards, which is a huge step
above the free-for-all we are forced to endure on VHF and up. But
even here, I think adding a "mixed non-digital" category (for SSB
and CW) would be a step forward in today's world. It would
undoubtedly improve my somewhat waning enthusiasm for the hobby.
For the record, I have tried JT65 and other digital modes. I'm not
opposed to them, but they are not for me. To each their own, of
course, but I would rather watch paint dry than work digital modes.
For me it takes the fun and sense of personal achievement out of
operating.
73,
Paul N1BUG
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|