[CQ-Contest] Counting DC as a Multiplier and Not as PartofMaryland.
Richard DiDonna NN3W
nn3w at cox.net
Wed May 23 09:00:35 EDT 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
To: "'Richard DiDonna NN3W'" <nn3w at cox.net>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:35 AM
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?
> Nothing I said prevents them from participating. It is entirely
> reasonable to keep them with Maryland. NAQP is the descendent of
> the old "CD Parties" where multiplies were based on Sections.
How is it reasonable that a political entity which issues its own drivers licenses, issues its own license plates, has its own representation in Congress, votes as a separate entity in elections, has countable votes in the Electoral College for President, is recognized as a separate entity by the U.S. government, and has NO influence by the state of Maryland should be lumped together with the state of Maryland? While its certainly true that NAQP is a decendent of the CD parties, that should NOT preclude a recognized political entity from being counted. Indeed, your position that the legacy of NAQP as a decendent of the CD parties would justify the removal of NWT and Nunavut as separate multipliers since the NWT territory used to be one section in the past. Do you think VY1JA or the other hams would appreciate that?
>> > 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.
> So? NAQP is the successor to the old CD parties which were
> based on the Field Organization structure (sections). There
> is still no imperative to change it. For the record, I also
> believe there is no justification for separate DC multipliers
> in ARRL DX, ARRL 10, etc. and I objected to making DC a separate
> multiplier in FQP (even though it only effects in state stations.
> By the way DC is not a multiplier - it's sections - in ARRL 160.
There is absolute imperative to change it - its a separate entity. But for the ARRL section system, there is NO political or legal connection of the District and Maryland. None. And, BTW, you should note that I never said that ARRL 160 recognized DC as a separate multiplier. It is indeed sections. Thank you for making note of the obvious.
>> 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.
> There is no benefit in making the change other than for the
> political aims of a limited number of DC residents. Contests
> with large numbers of small, relatively rare multipliers tend
> to be frustrating (and confusing) to new contesters and casual
> participants. Adding another small, rare multiplier is an
> overall negative for most contests.
See, thats where you're totally wrong. First, there is NO political aim of the D.C. hams on this one. I am as republican as it gets on most issues, but I fully support this initiative. The DC hams in no way are connecting DC as a multiplier to the generalized movement to state recognition for the District. Most reasonable hams recognize that the ARRL, DXCC, CQ Awards has created entities and multipliers for purposes of awards and contests. DC hams could care less that Desecheo is a multiplier, that the U.N. is a multiplier, that Sable Island is a multiplier. Its all part of the unique amateur radio game. It is NOT part of a generalized political strategy. So, get that out of your head - now.
As to the contesting as a whole, what is the problem with adding another multiplier - especially one that is justified. Do you advocate the elimination of Delaware as a multiplier since there is little activity from there? Do you advocate the elimination of Nunavut as a multiplier as there is little activity from there? Do you advocate the elimination of North Dakota as there is little activity from there? To the contrary, the hunt for multilpliers makes contests fun. The ability to work additional stations makes contests fun.
73 Rich NN3W
More information about the CQ-Contest