[CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

[rjairam at gmail.com]

Did you know that there is more than one DX awards program? It’s true. CQ
has its own DX awards program - CQ DX.

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cq_awards/cq_dx_awards/cq_dx_award/cq_dx_award.html

CQ DX has some great features such as a separate RTTY award (that doesn’t
include FT8 and other JT modes) and requires awards over a certain
threshold of contacts worked on an internet remote base to be so noted.
They also accept eQSL confirmations. They use the ARRL DXCC list.

However, Multipliers in CQWW are based on their own list, which is DXCC
plus a few others:

“Country: A multiplier of one (1) for each different country contacted on
each band. The DXCC entity list, Worked All Europe (WAE) multiplier list
plus IG9/IH9, and continental boundaries are the standards for defining
country multipliers. Maritime mobile stations count only for a zone
multiplier.”

It’s all fun and something new.

73
Ria, N2RJ





On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yuri <ve3dz at rigexpert.net> wrote:

> " Why should they be?" - Because multipliers in the contests like CQ WW
> and ARRL are based on DXCC. And a lot of people participate in these
> contests just to collect more  countries for this prestigious award. So,
> why the rules should be different? How then CQ would recognize which QSO
> was "right" and which was "wrong"?
> Same way as how ARRL nowadays recognizes "automated" FT8 QSO's? :-)
>
> However, "real contesters", i.e. those who participate not "just for fun"
> but in order to achieve better score or to win a contest - they wouldn't
> really care IMO.
>
> Yuri  VE3DZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+ve3dz=
> rigexpert.net at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN via
> CQ-Contest
> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 11:21 PM
> To: 'Yuri'
> Cc: 'CQ-Contest Reflector'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem
>
> Why should they be?  Where is it written that they ought to be?
>
> That's like saying, for example, that ALL (US) State QSO Parties must use
> the Canadian Provinces, or the Canadian Call Districts; and US States, or
> ARRL Sections; as their out of state North American multipliers.  Imagine
> the chaos is one state contest used sections and the next state contest
> used states! Oh, the humanity!
>
> (We won't even TOUCH the issue of whether the 4U UN calls should or should
> not count as separate multipliers, from the US State or EU country that
> they're located in.  Let alone why the District of Columbia is a multiplier
> is some contests but not others)
>
> Seriously... yes, it means some book keeping for the award applicant to
> make sure that his award entries are valid, when there is a mismatch.  So
> what?
> That's the nature of the game.  Always has been.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+wn3vaw=verizon.net at contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of Yuri
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 10:56 PM
> To: 'Peter Dougherty (W2IRT)'
> Cc: 'CQ-Contest Reflector'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem
>
> And I'm not fine with that. They ought to be.
>
> Yuri  VE3DZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+ve3dz=rigexpert.net at contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of rjairam at gmail.com
>
>
> Contest and DXCC rules are not always in sync, and they don't have to be.
>
> I am fine with that. All part of the game.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
>
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 20:12, <contesting at w2irt.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > Something I read on the CQ site has been gnawing at me since the 160
> > CW contest last weekend. Per the rules, remote RX is allowed in
> > certain Assisted categories for contest QSOs under contest rule III.
> >
> > III. CATEGORIES:
> > The use of one and only one remote receiver located within 100
> > kilometers of the main transmitter site is permitted
> >
> > While that's all fine and dandy, and I think it's quite a fair rule,
> > it absolutely goes against DXCC Rule 9C, which reads:
> > 9.  Station Location and Boundary:
> >
> > .
> > b) All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a
> > specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle.
> >
> > My reading of these two rules is pretty clear that remote-receive
> > QSOs, which ARE valid for the contest, cannot qualify as DXCC-valid
> contacts.
> > Enforcement is another matter, of course, but it's an issue that I
> > think needs to be looked into at some point. I'm a big proponent of
> > allowing remote receivers within a reasonable distance of the
> > transmitter location
> > (100 miles is fair in my opinion), and quite frankly I wish DXCC would
> > allow remote-RX QSOs to count for awards. But as the current rule is
> > written I don't see how these Qs can count toward any of the ARRL 160m
> awards.
> >
> > Is my interpretation wrong?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > GO FRC!
> > Peter, W2IRT
> >
> >
> > www.facebook.com/W2IRT
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>