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

[w5ov at w5ov.com]

Kelly,

I think some of this is much more practical and the amount of potential
difficulty may exceed "big whoop" status.

The key is how to identify which of these new sections one is in.

How likely is it that casual SS entrants in Ontario will not know which
one of these new sections they're in? How many SS entrants are in each of
these new sections? Will they know which section they're in?

I think that if they had announced these new sections would be used in the
2013 running of SS, giving a full year+ to communicate it and allow people
to be informed, it might have been a better decision.

It all seems a bit rushed - and unnecessary. It also seems a bit odd that
the ham population of VE3 was so unmanageable that it had to be divided
into 4 pieces. It also stands to reason that GTA is going to be the
biggest population - no?

73,

Bob W5OV

> 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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>