Re: Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC


and, many who might have an opinion one way or another may not be subscribed to ARRL Awards email or otherwise be unaware of the changes being considered?  The commentary here is certainly self-selected, "The kiss of death in statistics."  Normally in a membership organization, a committee tasked with determining if there is a problem and what possible solutions might work would survey with a large enough random sample for statistical significance.  DXCC would seem to be important enough to warrant some effort in this direction.


Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 8/11/2020 3:03 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:

Like the symbol rate discussions there are one or two people who dominate the postings and people would rather not get in the middle of it. That’s probably why you aren’t seeing more participation.


On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 5:54 PM W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote:
I think those that say propagation hopping is happening frequently and apparently ruining the award should provide facts not hearsay.  Why are the big names behind this STILL hiding behind curtains?


On 8/11/2020 3:21 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:
This is an unscientific poll. There has also been a call to action by one of the remote services. So I wouldn’t say that 3:1 is truly reflective of the ham radio population.


On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 5:13 PM Lin Holcomb <lin@...> wrote:
Yes is seems so and seems arbitrary. and from my own experiments propagation does not vary on >17m inside a 500km radius, but <12m it varries greatly inside a 50km area.
PS as a DXAC member I suggest you read all of the comments, by my count it is about 3:1 opposed to a change. While might does not make right it does make a difference in donations, membership and votes.

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.