an alternative to the proposed DXCC rules change
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
Jamie WW3S posted:I'm not sure if Steve agrees with Dave or no, hard to tell from that comment, but no matter, as he is not my representative.....sadly, neither my rep nor director have even acknowledged receiving my emails on the subject.....I guess when you run unopposed, you tend to lose sight of your members..... + Perhaps Director Abernathy and DXAC member Shalvoy will take this opportunity to explain their alleged unresponsiveness. 73, Dave, AA6YQ ------ Original Message ------ From: "Steven Rutledge" <steven.t.rutledge@...> To: ARRL-Awards@... Sent: 9/1/2020 2:31:31 PM Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] More guessing?? Of course it does. Thanks Dave. |
||
|
|
||
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
Regarding the unresponsiveness of Directors and members of the DXAC let me give kudos then to my Delta Division director and my DXAC rep. When I inquired about this ten days or so ago both replied within the day.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Many thanks to both. Steve, NN4T -----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 1:52 PM To: ARRL-Awards@...; w3tom@...; cshalvoy@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] an alternative to the proposed DXCC rules change + AA6YQ comments below Jamie WW3S posted:I'm not sure if Steve agrees with Dave or no, hard to tell from that comment, but no matter, as he is not my representative.....sadly, neither my rep nor director have even acknowledged receiving my emails on the subject.....I guess when you run unopposed, you tend to lose sight of your members..... + Perhaps Director Abernathy and DXAC member Shalvoy will take this opportunity to explain their alleged unresponsiveness. 73, Dave, AA6YQ ------ Original Message ------ From: "Steven Rutledge" <steven.t.rutledge@...> To: ARRL-Awards@... Sent: 9/1/2020 2:31:31 PM Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] More guessing?? Of course it does. Thanks Dave. |
||
|
|
||
|
AA6YQ Comment: “Recognizing an accomplishment does not denigrate those who have yet to achieve that accomplishment. If anything, it provides additional motivation.”
Yes it did! 5 BDXCC # 9626 issued in April 73, Dale K8TS
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 3:11 PM To: ARRL-Awards@...; w3tom@...; cshalvoy@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] an alternative to the proposed DXCC rules change
Regarding the unresponsiveness of Directors and members of the DXAC let me give kudos then to my Delta Division director and my DXAC rep. When I inquired about this ten days or so ago both replied within the day. Many thanks to both. Steve, NN4T
-----Original Message----- From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 1:52 PM To: ARRL-Awards@...; w3tom@...; cshalvoy@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] an alternative to the proposed DXCC rules change
+ AA6YQ comments below
> Jamie WW3S posted:
I'm not sure if Steve agrees with Dave or no, hard to tell from that comment, but no matter, as he is not my representative.....sadly, neither my rep nor director have even acknowledged receiving my emails on the subject.....I guess when you run unopposed, you tend to lose sight of your members.....
+ Perhaps Director Abernathy and DXAC member Shalvoy will take this opportunity to explain their alleged unresponsiveness.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
------ Original Message ------ From: "Steven Rutledge" <steven.t.rutledge@...> To: ARRL-Awards@... Sent: 9/1/2020 2:31:31 PM Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] More guessing??
>Of course it does. Thanks Dave. > >Steve, N4JQQ, DXAC, Delta > >On 9/1/2020 12:47 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote: >>+ AA6YQ comments below >> >>Whenever you elevate one group of operators over the other, you automatically denigrate the other party. >> >>+ Like by publishing standings that distinguish operators who have attained the DXCC Mixed, CW, Phone, and Digital Honor Rolls? >> >><http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-standings> >> >>+ Recognizing an accomplishment does not denigrate those who have yet to achieve that accomplishment. If anything, it provides additional motivation. >> >> 73, >> >> Dave, AA6YQ
|
||
|
|
||
|
John Glover
I'm not sure I understand the details of the "single area" endorsement.
As I understand it, a DXCC certificate issued without that endorsement will imply that the Qs were made from multiple locations, whether resulting from remote station control (e.g., RHR) or operating from multiple QTHs (e.g., a New Yorker who moved to Arizona). My guesstimate is there are 100,000+ existing DXCC certificates. To the extent there is a perception that a DXCC certificate without that endorsement is 'lesser' than one with it: 1. my guess is a substantial number of the existing certificates for which the Qs were made from a single area will insist that the ARRL award the endorsement retroactively, and at no cost to the awardee. 2. my guess is a number of the existing certificates that do not qualify for a retroactive "single area" endorsement, but for which none of the Qs were made using a remote service, are going to insist that their certificate not be "denigrated" by being placed in the same category as those who used a remote service, and therefore will insist on some sort of hybrid endorsement. How is the ARRL going to manage that flood of requests? What is DXCC supposed to recognize? Station building/ownership? Station operating? Those, it seems to me, are becoming more and more distinct (consider how services like Starlink might affect station location and access). Maybe it's time for separate awards/recognition. Because ultimately this is all about ~$350,000. For that amount, an operator can have well-appointed stations, accessible remotely, on both US coasts. Would anyone complain about that operator "propagation shopping" or cranking out the 160/6 totals? RHR, through their vision, investment, and work, made this capability available for a fraction of that cost. |
||
|
|
||
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
As sent to Jamie - Jamie, I did receive your correspondence along with literally hundreds of others (directly and thru the chat room). The DXAC has been in discussion and members have submitted suggestions from their constituents and feelings of their own. You may be aware that this would be the third time this has been asked of us to comment on. We (DXAC) do not have decision making powers, we are an advisory committee, final decisions are made at the PSC and ARRL BOD. + Correct, but your advice has more impact than that of individual ARRL members. I don't believe many understand that process. + Perhaps a description of the DXAC's responsibilities and modus operandi could be added to <http://www.arrl.org/dxac> + What's there now is pitiful. Our suggestions have been submitted and now we wait, along with everyone else. + Many thanks for your post and your service, Chris! 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
||
|
|
||
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
I suspect John that it will be an endorsement available from the DXCC desk. To receive it one will have to vouch that their career DXing totals were all built within whatever parameters the League decides to adopt. If, in fact, they do anything at all on this subject. I have reached out to my Director, who initiated this discussion, asking how many DXers reached out and expressed concern. I have no idea if it a large number but I suspect it is not. I suspect it is a modest number of veteran DXers who have spent forty or fifty or more years building their totals. I have received no information on the subject. As these are personal achievements and are not done for monetary gain I don’t understand their concern. The only people who care about our totals are the individual operators. Yet their feelings are strong enough to ask for this consideration. My problem is they are not asking for this endorsement. They are asking to hobble the ability of DXers like me to use remotes to build our totals. That is wrong. And it has been rejected by the League in both 2014 and 2017. Perhaps there is a way to word an endorsement to satisfy these colleagues without simultaneously creating a “gold standard” for DXing that one can only achieve if the use of remotes is avoided. Is King Solomon available for consultation? Steve, NN4T
From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of John Glover via groups.arrl.org
I'm not sure I understand the details of the "single area" endorsement. |
||
|
|
||
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
I'm not sure I understand the details of the "single area" endorsement. As I understand it, a DXCC certificate issued without that endorsement will imply that the Qs were made from multiple locations, whether resulting from remote station control (e.g., RHR) or operating from multiple QTHs (e.g., a New Yorker who moved to Arizona). + or that the operator was not motivated to obtain the endorsement, even though he or she qualifies for it. My guesstimate is there are 100,000+ existing DXCC certificates. To the extent there is a perception that a DXCC certificate without that endorsement is 'lesser' than one with it: + It is unquestionably more difficult to attain DXCC milestones with all QSOs made from within a single area than with QSOs made from any location within a large DXCC entity like the continental United States. 1. my guess is a substantial number of the existing certificates for which the Qs were made from a single area will insist that the ARRL award the endorsement retroactively, and at no cost to the awardee. + They can insist all they like, but like any other ARRL award or endorsement, an application would be require to apply for the Endorsement and submit the necessary funds. 2. my guess is a number of the existing certificates that do not qualify for a retroactive "single area" endorsement, but for which none of the Qs were made using a remote service, are going to insist that their certificate not be "denigrated" by being placed in the same category as those who used a remote service, and therefore will insist on some sort of hybrid endorsement. + The proposed endorsement is not specific to the use of remote stations. I started DXing from Silicon Valley in 1990, but work responsibilities required that I relocate to Boston area in 1997. I have not used remote stations. If I want the proposed "Single Area Endorsement" for my "#1 Honor Roll" and "DXCC Challenge 3000" plaques, I'll have to work and confirm the entities and entity-bands that I only worked and confirmed from California. How is the ARRL going to manage that flood of requests? + In the usual way that businesses manage demand: by setting the price of the Endorsement to cover the cost of its fulfillment. What is DXCC supposed to recognize? Station building/ownership? + There has never been a rule requiring a DXCC participant to assemble his or her own station, much less design and construct his or her transceiver and antenna. Station operating? + Sadly, DXCC rule 9 allows QSOs made by other operators from your station. Such QSOs should not count for DXCC milestones, in my opinion, but that's another issue for another day. Because ultimately this is all about ~$350,000. For that amount, an operator can have well-appointed stations, accessible remotely, on both US coasts. Would anyone complain about that operator "propagation shopping" or cranking out the 160/6 totals? + Of course, but the number of DXers doing that has been small enough to remain under the radar - to the point where some of these operators may not be making DXCC award submissions. They likely aren't participating in the traditional "sit downs" at DX club meetings. RHR, through their vision, investment, and work, made this capability available for a fraction of that cost. + Correct: which means that the number of DXers who can "propagation shop" has been rapidly increasing. Hence the need for an Endorsement to recognize those DXers whose QSOs have been made from within a single area -- using remote stations or not. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
||
|
|
||
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
I suspect John that it will be an endorsement available from the DXCC desk. To receive it one will have to vouch that their career DXing totals were all built within whatever parameters the League decides to adopt. If, in fact, they do anything at all on this subject. I have reached out to my Director, who initiated this discussion, asking how many DXers reached out and expressed concern. I have no idea if it a large number but I suspect it is not. I suspect it is a modest number of veteran DXers who have spent forty or fifty or more years building their totals. I have received no information on the subject. As these are personal achievements and are not done for monetary gain I don’t understand their concern. The only people who care about our totals are the individual operators. Yet their feelings are strong enough to ask for this consideration. My problem is they are not asking for this endorsement. They are asking to hobble the ability of DXers like me to use remotes to build our totals. That is wrong. And it has been rejected by the League in both 2014 and 2017. Perhaps there is a way to word an endorsement to satisfy these colleagues without simultaneously creating a “gold standard” for DXing that one can only achieve if the use of remotes is avoided. + As I have already explained multiple times here, as well as to you in response to your direct email, the proposed Endorsement does not exclude the use of remote stations. It requires making all of one's DXCC-submitted QSOs from within a single area of diameter X. Even though you live in Tennessee, you could make all of your QSOs using a remote station in Seattle, and qualify for the proposed Single Area Endorsement. What would disqualify you from the proposed Endorsement would be submitting some QSOs made from a remote station in Seattle, and some QSOs made from your home station in Tennessee. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
||
|
|
||
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
Thank you Dave. And I have read your thoughts both here and privately. This campaign, as in the previous two campaigns, has been about eliminating or curtailing the use of accessible remote technology for DXCC awards. If this were simply about recognition for having built their totals without the use of remotes and without living and operating bi-coastally a simple endorsement, as you have suggested, would have taken care of it in 2014. To my knowledge that was not a part of the previous discussions.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I cannot read the minds of those who asked Marty to bring this to the Board. But I can read between the lines. Steve, NN4T -----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 5:18 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] an alternative to the proposed DXCC rules change + AA6YQ comments below I suspect John that it will be an endorsement available from the DXCC desk. To receive it one will have to vouch that their career DXing totals were all built within whatever parameters the League decides to adopt. If, in fact, they do anything at all on this subject. I have reached out to my Director, who initiated this discussion, asking how many DXers reached out and expressed concern. I have no idea if it a large number but I suspect it is not. I suspect it is a modest number of veteran DXers who have spent forty or fifty or more years building their totals. I have received no information on the subject. As these are personal achievements and are not done for monetary gain I don’t understand their concern. The only people who care about our totals are the individual operators. Yet their feelings are strong enough to ask for this consideration. My problem is they are not asking for this endorsement. They are asking to hobble the ability of DXers like me to use remotes to build our totals. That is wrong. And it has been rejected by the League in both 2014 and 2017. Perhaps there is a way to word an endorsement to satisfy these colleagues without simultaneously creating a “gold standard” for DXing that one can only achieve if the use of remotes is avoided. + As I have already explained multiple times here, as well as to you in response to your direct email, the proposed Endorsement does not exclude the use of remote stations. It requires making all of one's DXCC-submitted QSOs from within a single area of diameter X. Even though you live in Tennessee, you could make all of your QSOs using a remote station in Seattle, and qualify for the proposed Single Area Endorsement. What would disqualify you from the proposed Endorsement would be submitting some QSOs made from a remote station in Seattle, and some QSOs made from your home station in Tennessee. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
||
|
|
||
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
Thank you Dave. And I have read your thoughts both here and privately. This campaign, as in the previous two campaigns, has been about eliminating or curtailing the use of accessible remote technology for DXCC awards. If this were simply about recognition for having built their totals without the use of remotes and without living and operating bi-coastally a simple endorsement, as you have suggested, would have taken care of it in 2014. + The "Single Area Endorsement" is an alternative to changing the DXCC rules. + My advice: stop worrying about motivation, and focus on outcome. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
||
|
|
||
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
Dave, you are missing all the fun! I know how round will end. The fun comes in reading between the lines and determining the motivation of your opponents. As I fully expect this to return as an issue that knowledge may be useful.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I'm willing to bet that reading between the lines is a useful skill for an attorney. Am I correct Counselor? Be well and be safe. Steve On 09/01/2020 6:55 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote: |
||
|
|
||
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
Dave, you are missing all the fun! I know how round will end. The fun comes in reading between the lines and determining the motivation of your opponents. As I fully expect this to return as an issue that knowledge may be useful. I'm willing to bet that reading between the lines is a useful skill for an attorney. Am I correct Counselor? + I'm an engineer. We try to look at the lines as they are written and evaluate them on their merits, independent of the source, and without speculating on the source's motivation. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
||
|
|
||
|
Zack Widup
Force of habit. I've never tried to read between the lines of a datasheet. :-) 73, Zack W9SZ (Also an EE) On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:18 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote: + AA6YQ comments below |
||
|
|
||
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
If you don't understand people and their motivations you will never make sense of the facts when human emotions are in play. As they are in this instance. The truth about people is always found in the grey areas. Where there is not the comfortable consistency of ones and zeros.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
My wife is from a family of engineers. All Purdue grads. My father-in-law was and my brother-in-law is a patent attorney. Both E. E.'s I think I will leave this alone and go back to responding to the people who comment on the op-eds in the WSJ. It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel but it passes the time between patients. I look forward to seeing what the P and A Committee comes up with when they meet. Be well Dave. Steve On 09/01/2020 8:18 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote: |
||
|
|
||
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
Then you are at a disadvantage when dealing with an emotional issue such as this Zack. No ones and zeros to evaluate. Just anger, passion and a sense of loss. That is what is driving this effort.
Steve, NN4T
09/01/2020 8:43 PM Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Zack Widup
Then I'll leave it to you guys and just go and work some DX. :-) 73, Zack W9SZ On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:52 PM Steven R Daniel, D.D.S. <nn4t@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
If you don't understand people and their motivations you will never make sense of the facts when human emotions are in play. + Nowhere did I say that understanding people and their motivations is never relevant. When I was designing a microprocessor, I did not speculate as to the motivation of the process engineer who specified the performance parameters. When I was interviewing candidates for a leadership role, motivation was a primary discriminant. + In this situation, what matters is the quality of the potential solutions we identify. The motivations of those involved are irrelevant. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
||
|
|
||
|
“Sense of loss”? Has something been taken away? Did I miss a memo?
From: Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 01:52 To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] an alternative to the proposed DXCC rules change
Then you are at a disadvantage when dealing with an emotional issue such as this Zack. No ones and zeros to evaluate. Just anger, passion and a sense of loss. That is what is driving this effort. Steve, NN4T
-- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a Boy and His Radio"™ |
||
|
|
||
|
Chris Shalvoy <cshalvoy@...>
Dave,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
As sent to Jamie - Jamie, I did receive your correspondence along with literally hundreds of others (directly and thru the chat room). The DXAC has been in discussion and members have submitted suggestions from their constituents and feelings of their own. You may be aware that this would be the third time this has been asked of us to comment on. We (DXAC) do not have decision making powers, we are an advisory committee, final decisions are made at the PSC and ARRL BOD. I don't believe many understand that process. Our suggestions have been submitted and now we wait, along with everyone else. Best DX es 73, Chris, K2CS On 09/01/2020 02:51 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments belowJamie WW3S posted:I'm not sure if Steve agrees with Dave or no, hard to tell from that comment, but no matter, as he is not my representative.....sadly, neither my rep nor director have even acknowledged receiving my emails on the subject.....I guess when you run unopposed, you tend to lose sight of your members..... |
||
|
|
||
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
My point is those who are driving the effort to limit the use of remotes for DXCC credit feel their achievements are diminished when their totals are compared head to head with those of us who use the remote technology. The proposal, as has been the case twice in the past, is to eliminate or curtail the use of that technology for DXCC awards. My response to them has been either use the technology or don’t. But please do not limit my use of the technology in my pursuit of DXCC awards. This has been simmering for over six years. Be well. Steve, NN4T
From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of H Hans Brakob
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 9:22 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] an alternative to the proposed DXCC rules change
“Sense of loss”? Has something been taken away? Did I miss a memo?
From: Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
Then you are at a disadvantage when dealing with an emotional issue such as this Zack. No ones and zeros to evaluate. Just anger, passion and a sense of loss. That is what is driving this effort. Steve, NN4T
|
||
|
|
