[CQ-Contest] Counting DC as a Multiplier and Not as PartofMaryland.

[Richard DiDonna NN3W]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
To: "'Richard DiDonna NN3W'" <nn3w at cox.net>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:36 PM
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Counting DC as a Multiplier and Not as 
PartofMaryland.


>
> NN3W writes:
>
>> The differences are pretty definitive, and D.C. holds a
>> unique position worthy of multiplier recognition.
>
> I do not agree that DC holds a unique position worthy of
> recognition as a multiplier.  The multipliers in NAQP are
> DXCC entities plus US States and Canadian provinces.  DC
> does not qualify on any of those criteria.
>
Fine, settled.  In the upcoming NAQPs and Sprints, no station from the 
District of Columbia is allowed to compete, as it is neither a U.S.state nor 
a DXCC entity nor a multiplier.  Is that acceptable to you?   Does that seem 
reasonable?

> DC is considered part of Maryland for the WAS program and
> is also counted as Maryland (MDC section, specifically) for
> SS.
>
And DC is considered as a separate multiplier in other ARRL sponsored 
contests (i.e., ARRL DX, ARRL 10). So, what is arbitrary in one sphere, is 
not so in others.  A two word change will do nothing to denegrate the 
operation of the contest.  To the contary, as most people here agree, it 
will indeed likely enhance it.

>> > This is no more a "wrong" than the arbitrary multipliers in many
>> > other contests.  It is a historical fact of life that should be
>> > maintained for tradition and not changed on a whim.
>> >
>> I'm not sure how its being changed on a whim.  Its as much of
>> a political entity as any state (albeit without a governor).
>> Indeed most major contests recognize it as a multiplier -
>> ARRL DX, ARRL 10, CQWW 160, RTTY Roundup  and several QSO
>> parties including Florida (recently announced).
>
> The proposal is to change it at the whim of, and to benefit a
> limited number of, stations in DC.  As a matter of principle,
> I always object to creating arbitrary multipliers in any contest
> particularly when that multiplier does not fit the established
> criteria for multipliers.
>
No, the benefit is available to all - increased activities, and increased 
multipliers.  Just for historical perspective, did you object to the 
splitting up of the Canadian Maritimes for purposes of NAQP?

73 Rich NN3W

> 73,
>
>   ... Joe, W4TV
>